KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

This post contains the most up-to-date version of the rules. My original post has been moved to the spoiler at the top of post #2.

1. General

*1.1 - Game Settings:

M2TW with the 1.3 patch
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.
LIST OF MODS TO BE USED

*1.2 – Avatars: Each player will roleplay a nobleman of FACTION. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this nobleman. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by M2TW, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming FACTION HEIR and FACTION LEADER. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may not use agents as avatars, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals.

1.3 – Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. Any player involved in a Civil War may give permission for another player to move their avatar and armies by posting that information in a public thread. 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.

1.5 – Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, econ21, TinCow, 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, including * marked 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.


2. Feudal Heirarchy

2.1 – Rank Gain and Loss: All noblemen enter the game at the rank of Knight. Noblemen will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a nobleman ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

2.2 – Gaining and Losing Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, noblemen gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple noblemen are part of the conquering army, the nobleman controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding nobleman is considered the conqueror. If no nobleman is involved in the battle whatsoever, the FACTION LEADER is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, TinCow will determine which noblemen receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per nobleman. Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5).

2.3 – Retinue: At any time, a nobleman may give any retinue item/member they possess to another nobleman 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, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal.

2.4 – Wills & Inheritance: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. 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 noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman 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 nobleman 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 GOVERNING BODY is in session.

2.6 – Loyalty in a Feudal Chain: A Vassal’s loyalty is always to his Lord, even if his Lord is himself a Vassal of another nobleman. If a nobleman swears or breaks an Oath of Fealty, his relationship to his Vassals remains unchanged. In this way, a Lord can bring his entire chain of followers into the service of another nobleman without anyone else having to change their status. Similarly, a nobleman will take his entire chain of followers with him if he breaks his Oath of Fealty.

2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY 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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baronet is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.
(2) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal GOVERNING BODY Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baronet's Lord. If the Baronet has no Lord, the provinces are given to the FACTION LEADER.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least 1 nobleman as a vassal.
Influence: 1 + up to 1 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY 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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 2 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.
Influence: 1 + up to 1 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY 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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 3 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc.
Influence: 1 + up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY 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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 4 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Count at some point in time.
Influence: 1 + up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY 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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 5 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Marquess at some point in time.
Influence: 1 + up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY 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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have a total of at least 6 noblemen as vassals, vassals of vassals, etc. Must have served 10 consecutive turns as a Duke at some point in time.
Influence: 1 + up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(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.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(12) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.

FACTION HEIR:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION HEIR
Influence: +1 to the Stat Influence cap of their other rank
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involved the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION HEIR will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(4) Owns one Royal Army. This Power voids the ability of the FACTION HEIR to own a Private or Royal Army through the Powers of any other feudal rank.

FACTION LEADER:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION LEADER
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(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.
(3) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(4) Owns one Royal Army.
(5) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(6) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(7) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman to themselves or any other nobleman. This power cannot be used on any nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(8) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(9) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(10) Decides which nobleman, if any, a Princess should marry.
(11) Once during his reign, the FACTION LEADER may automatically assume the post of CHANCELLOR. The FACTION LEADER must declare he is exercising that right at a GOVERNING BODY session; he will then be appointed CHANCELLOR with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the FACTION LEADER may also compete in normal CHANCELLOR elections at other GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(12) Can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(13) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION LEADER will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(14) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
(15) Banishment

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The FACTION LEADER can banish noblemen from all FACTION controlled provinces. While Banished, a nobleman can be attacked by any other nobleman without the need for a Declaration of War, unless the Banished nobleman is not inside a FACTION controlled province. Any provinces owned by the Banished nobleman can also be attacked without the need for a Declaration of War. Any provinces conquered in this manner will become the property of the nobleman who conquered them. The Banished nobleman cannot be attacked on the same turn that the Banishment is ordered, unless he is in the same FACTION controlled province as the FACTION LEADER, or an adjacent FACTION controlled province to the FACTION LEADER. The Banished nobleman can defend himself, but cannot initiate an attack without making a Declaration of War. No units may be disbanded or removed from the Banished nobleman's armies or settlements without his permission. The FACTION LEADER will determine the fate of a Banished nobleman who is captured in battle. A Banishment can be ended by an Edict passed by the GOVERNING BODY. If the Banished nobleman is in a feudal chain at the time the Banishment is issued, the highest ranking nobleman in that feudal chain can call an Emergency GOVERNING BODY Session. This session can only be called on the same turn that the Banishment is issued.

The duration of the Banishment is determined by the FACTION LEADER's Authority. With an Authority of 5 or lower, this power may not be used. With an Authority of 6 or 7, one nobleman may be Banished for 5 turns. With an Authority of 8 or 9, one nobleman may be Banished for 10 turns. With an Authority of 10, two noblemen may be Banished for 10 turns each. Regardless of the level of Authority, this power cannot be used within 10 turns of a previous use. Banishment ends when a Banished nobleman is publicly pardoned by the FACTION LEADER, the time limit expires, an appropriate Edict is passed, or the FACTION LEADER dies.

Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold another feudal rank except CHANCELLOR.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a FACTION LEADER, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the nobleman who is the new FACTION LEADER are instantly broken. The new FACTION LEADER takes control of all provinces owned by the previous FACTION LEADER, unless they were given away by a valid Will. The new FACTION LEADER retains possession of any provinces he controlled prior to inheriting the throne.

CHANCELLOR:
Requirements: Must have been elected CHANCELLOR
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, 2 + up to 5 Stat Influence, or the nobleman's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a nobleman serves as CHANCELLOR, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for noblemen who serve multiple terms as CHANCELLOR. The in-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER. The post-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER or to any nobleman who ceased to be CHANCELLOR because he was 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 nobleman’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the CHANCELLOR can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the CHANCELLOR to the extent that the GOVERNING BODY chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The CHANCELLOR must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the CHANCELLOR is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the CHANCELLOR can build whatever he likes. The CHANCELLOR may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the nobleman who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the noblemen who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the CHANCELLOR may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The CHANCELLOR must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) (4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

3. GOVERNING BODY

3.1 –Sessions: The GOVERNING BODY 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. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.

3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, noblemen may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other noblemen before they can be put to the vote.

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the GOVERNING BODY. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

*3.4 – Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass and can permanently modify the rules in any way, except for rules marked with a *.

3.5 – Influence: Each nobleman’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No nobleman’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a nobleman can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) nobleman’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) nobleman is married to a FACTION Princess.

3.6 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

3.7 – 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).

*3.8 – Impeachment: The CHANCELLOR can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the GOVERNING BODY. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new CHANCELLOR, although the FACTION LEADER may also exercise his power to become CHANCELLOR at that point. The nobleman replacing the impeached CHANCELLOR serves out the remainder of the impeached CHANCELLOR’S term. All Edicts passed in the GOVERNING BODY session that elected the impeached CHANCELLOR remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.


4. Armies

4.1 – Private Armies: Private Armies will consist of a minimum of 3 infantry regiments, 2 ranged regiments, and 1 cavalry regiment. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.2 – Royal Armies: Royal Armies will consist of a minimum of 4 infantry regiments, 3 ranged regiments, and 2 cavalry regiments. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. The owner of a Royal Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: An army of 10 units or less cannot have more than 3 units of heavy cavalry. An army of 11 units or more cannot have more than 5 units of heavy cavalry. For the purposes of this rule, bodyguard units do not count as heavy cavalry. Armies that do not meet these requirements cannot fight battles under any circumstances, though they can be used for transportation.


5. Civil War

*5.1 – Declaration of War: A nobleman must make a Declaration of War towards a specific nobleman in a public thread before they can attack any of that nobleman’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all noblemen of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the nobleman who makes the Declaration and the nobleman 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 noblemen in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target. Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, until the target(s) have been provided with one full turn's worth of movement. This rule does not limit movement in any way, nor does it prevent the target(s) of the Declaration of War from attacking the declarer(s).

*5.2 – 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 5.1, the nobleman who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the nobleman who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War. If a Civil War begins in this manner, any nobleman who would lose the right to own a Private Army as the result of the breaking of the Oath of Fealty will be allowed to retain ownership of his Private Army until the Civil War ends.

*5.3 – Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all noblemen on one side are dead or all living noblemen on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Loyalty, and retinue of the noblemen 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 nobleman’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the GOVERNING BODY at the next normal session. Individual noblemen 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 Loyalty that tie them to any nobleman involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any nobleman who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

5.4 – 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 econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose 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 Battle of Bern and the Battle of Trent and will be umpired by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. 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 econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. 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 econ21, TinCow, or anyone they 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.

Original version of the rules moved here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Please use this thread to discuss your thoughts on how KOTR went and what we should do for the next game. Comments and criticisms of my proposed rule draft are highly encouraged. Do not be afraid of hurting my feelings. I want a lot of input on this so that the next game will be as good as we can possibly make it. The more problems we can fix right now, the better the game will be. If you have suggestions of your own that are completely at odds with my own suggestions, please do post them. The following rules are simply a suggestion and they are not “the way it’s going to be.” I’ve just provided them as a blueprint of what I think might work well, based on my own feelings about KOTR and discussions with econ21. They can be used as they are, modified in part, or scrapped entirely, depending on what the rest of you want. These games derive all of their entertainment value from the participation of many people; everyone should have a voice in how they are played.

Note: All ‘Spoilers’ are comments I have added to explain or discuss certain specific things. Think of them like the Director's Commentary on a DVD. They are not part of the actual rules and will be removed from any final version.

(Preface Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Initially, it is important to note that I think we need a major shift in the focus of the entertainment in our ‘big’ TW PBMs. As we all know, the TW AI is not a major source of challenge or excitement. We can boost it with artificial methods, such as we started using in the later stages of KOTR, but even then the AI itself was somewhat boring to compete against. The real excitement of KOTR always came from competition amongst the players. Therefore, I believe that our ‘big’ PBMs, in the WOTS and KOTR style, should from now on be focused on competition between the players themselves, not between the players and the AI. Wherever possible, conflict with the AI should simply be a method to increase competition between the players. I believe that these rules a major shift in that direction. I think further changes to the rules should be focused on increasing player competition and freedom of action, while at the same time streamlining the system whenever possible. Think of it as adding a drop of Mafia to the PBM system.

I have tried very hard to keep the rules simple and easy to understand. The KOTR rules, even from the beginning, caused a fair amount of confusion and took a while to get used to. Since the players will necessarily make the rules even more complex as the game goes on, I believe it is imperative to keep the starting rules to the absolute minimum necessary to play the game. I know this is probably a pretty hilarious statement, given the length of the rules I have created, but if you read them over I think you will see that I have attempted to make them very clear and also kept them well-organized. In addition the rules focus entirely on the mechanics behind the game, not the ‘content.’ This design is intended to create the basic blueprints of a functional feudal society within the limits imposed by RTW/M2TW. If you know anything about D&D, try to think of it like a ‘d20’ system for TW PBMs. I have left all other aspects, including the very purpose of the game, for the players to decide themselves. As such, I have specifically and intentionally omitted rules regarding the following things:

1) Houses – The players can do whatever they want with their feudal structure, it is not pre-defined by the rules. The vassalage system creates defacto houses by its simple existence. The various feudal ‘chains’ can determine for themselves what their names should be, whether they should be geographically contiguous, who can be a member, etc.

2) Victory Conditions – The game is over when the players say it is over. The purpose is to roleplay in a feudal society modeled on the M2TW game engine. All other objectives are arbitrary and up the players to decide upon, if they even need to be decided at all.

3) Crusades/Jihads and Missions – The method of handling these should be decided by the political process, not the rules.

Please note that the following terms are genericized, since the rules are not specific to a single faction. The following terms will be replaced with the proper faction-specific equivalents once the faction is decided upon: FACTION, FACTION HEIR, FACTION LEADER, GOVERNING BODY, CHANCELLOR. The titles of the various Feudal Ranks should be altered to fit the chosen faction as well.

1. General

1.1 - Game Settings:

*M2TW with the 1.3 patch
*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.
*LIST OF MODS TO BE USED

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think we should to switch from vanilla M2TW to a mod. Vanilla was fine for the first run-through, but we need something that will provide more of a challenge without having to use console commands all the time. A mod that adds more provinces to the game will also help a great deal with the Feudal Structure I created, as it will work best when each player controls at least one province. At the time I am writing this, my personal preference is for Stainless Steel 4.1, with campaign and battle AI mods layered over it. However, a lot of people seem to be keen on Broken Crescent, so that’s another major option for consideration. Kingdoms should probably be avoided to keep the potential player base as high as possible, however Stainless Steel 6.0 looks really, really tempting to me...

I'm hoping that if we do things right, the next game will result in a format where fighting is an actively dangerous proposition. Advancing in rank thus becomes a good thing for the simple reason that you can have your vassals do the dangerous work for you. Dukes would almost never want to fight battles because of the risk involved and the immense amount of work it took to get to that position. Once you've achieved power, you want to stay alive to use it, not risk your neck in some skirmish. That's vassal work!

While we’re on the topic of Mods, I think we should also add a custom made Mod that will make Recruitable Generals available from every level of wall in both cities and castles, and reduce their recruitment cost to something like 1 florin. We want to have a large number of players in this game, right from the start, because we need more players to support the higher feudal ranks (see Section 2). Allowing these units to be recruited from anywhere and for essentially no cost will allow us to get every player an avatar within a couple turns of starting the game, or at least by the end of the first CHANCELLOR term. We need to avoid the multi-month wait we experienced at the beginning of KOTR.

For those worried that this will result in us steamrolling the AI through a sheer massive number of generals, the Rule 2.7 restrictions on army commands should largely prevent this. In addition, steamrolling the AI isn’t quite as big a deal anyway, since the game is intended to focus on competition between the players, not between the players and the AI. The more provinces we control, the more elaborate and intricate our politics will become.

*1.2 – Avatars: Each player will roleplay a nobleman of FACTION. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this nobleman. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by M2TW, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming FACTION HEIR and FACTION LEADER. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may not use agents as avatars, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals.

1.3 – Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note that this rule is specifically worded to eliminate the Active and Reserve Duty differentiation that we had in KOTR. econ21 and I talked about this, and we agreed that we were running into conflicts by allowing substitutes for players on Permanent Reserve Duty, but not for those on Temporary Reserve Duty. The problem is that it isn't always clear when someone is going to be on Temporary or Permanent Reserve. Sometimes they don't even know themselves. Also, it introduced an element of arbitrary determination into the situation when some 'excuses' were deemed valid for substitutes while others weren't.

The wording of this rule is designed to get rid of the TRD and PRD distinction. If you are unable to fight a battle with your avatar, you would have two choices: (1) don't get into a battle and (2) autoresolve. This keeps it simple and does not discriminate against certain excuses or situations. In addition, we think it would be good for the game overall. If only Active Duty avatars can fight battles, then expansion is likely to be slower and the assignment of army commands is likely to be more diverse. Top-level general avatars will have to be withdrawn when their players become unavailable or at the very least they will frequently take a second or even third avatar with them to command in case they cannot fight a battle when it pops up.

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a translation of KOTR’s post-Catalcysm OOC CA 14.2, which seems to be popular and works relatively well.

Lines 3 and 4, combined with the Chancellor’s Limitation on Power #4, are an experimental attempt to give the game a bit of the military ‘ownership’ we had during the Cataclysm. People definitely liked ‘owning’ armies in addition to owning a province, and it increased the immersion and the role-playing. However, allowing this without slowing down the game is a difficult balance. We tried to give people absolute control over their own military units in the pre-KOTR HRE test game, and that was an unmitigated disaster. It was way too hard to keep track of units and orders.

However, I think the above way could possibly work. The way I intend it to work is like this: the Chancellor is still in charge of all finances and can order recruitment wherever he damn well pleases. However, since all recruited units start their turn in a settlement, the owner of that settlement will then be able to seize control of them if he desires. He can do this in a couple ways. First, he can give specific orders that prevent the Chancellor from removing the unit from his settlement or disbanding it. This will keep the unit under his control for the foreseeable future. If his garrison overflows and he has been lucky enough to get the funding from a Chancellor to erect a fort within his province, he can personally move the units to the fort and give similar orders preventing them from being removed or disbanded. Since the player always has absolute control over his own Private/Royal Army, he can use the garrison/fort units to stockpile reinforcements to bulk up his offensive power. Just move your Private/Royal Army to within one turn’s movement range of the settlement/fort and transfer your units back and forth as you please.

Combined with the limitation on the Chancellor’s ability to disband, this will allow people to assemble at least a small amount of personal military power that is under their direct control. A Private/Royal Army will still be needed for non-Chancellor-approved offensive operations, since removing units from the settlement/fort without putting them in a Private/Royal Army will subject them to the whims of the Chancellor. However even the lowliest Baronet will be able to accumulate a small defensive force this way, if recruitment is repeatedly done in their provinces.

This also opens up an added level of interaction and politicking amongst the players. Castle settlements will usually get most of the money for military recruitment. This will give the owners of Castle settlements the ability to accumulate (though negotiation or direct seizure) better military forces than owners of city settlements. Thus, developed castle settlements will become more highly prized than some of their city equivalents. Noblemen with castles will thus have greater bargaining power than noblemen without castles. In addition, if noblemen have control over a few units of their own, unit trading could become a new area of negotiation. For instance, House Atreides wants to attack a nearby AI controlled settlement, but they do not have access to a castle and thus their army is largely militia-based. Nearby House Harkonnen has a well-developed castle and has stockpiled several heavy infantry units as a result. House Atreides can negotiate with House Harkonnen for those heavy infantry units. Perhaps retinue is exchanged with House Harkonnen, perhaps votes are pledged on a future Edict, or perhaps an entire province is traded to them. Whenever the deal is made, a House Atreides Private Army moves into the region and House Harkonnen transfers the spare Heavy Infantry from the garrison/fort to the Private Army, thus completing the transaction. A Private Army isn’t even necessary, if both sides trust the Chancellor not to interfere in the deal. House Harkonnen could even agree to ‘deliver’ the units with one of their own Private Armies, depending on the terms of the deal.

This will also have a trickle-down effect on the Chancellorship. Since the Chancellor determines where the money is spent for military recruitment, he can greatly increase the military stockpile of Houses that he favors, while starving Houses that he is at odds with. This in turn will result in more competitive elections, as Houses will not want to see their rivals win the Chancellorship, as it could have disastrous consequences for their own ambitions. While the noblemen can assume absolute control over any units their provinces produce and stockpile them for future use, the Chancellor has absolute control over the treasury. If you don’t let the Chancellor do what he wants, he could refuse to recruit any units in your provinces, leaving you vulnerable. Thus, it’s in the interests of the noblemen not to interfere too much in the Chancellor’s military decisions. In addition, the Chancellor can completely bypass obstinate noblemen by recruiting only mercenaries. Since mercenaries can be recruited outside of a settlement and fort, they are immune to the nobleman’s ability to block them. I think this sounds kind of realistic too. Local lords can prevent others from using their own population for military recruitment, but they cannot control the use of mercenaries. Piss off the Chancellor, and you may find a rival House being bulked up with mercenary units to kick you back into line.

At the same time, the burden of organization should not be too greatly increased, because it will be easy to identify the units that are impacted (in a settlement, in a fort, and in a Private/Royal Army), plus the burden of determining what can and cannot be done is on the noblemen, not the Chancellor. This ties into my closing thoughts on thread management (see the end of the rules). We can use a single ‘Personal Orders’ thread where every player has a single post for their avatar. That post will list every province/settlement and Private/Royal Army they own. Underneath each settlement/army, the player can write any specific orders they have for the units in that settlement/army. For instance, a settlement orders could be: “Milan: Garrison may not be reduced below 5 units,” “Metz: No units may be removed or disbanded at all,” or “Ragusa: Garrison may not be reduced below 4 ranged infantry and 4 melee infantry.” Private/Royal Army orders could be: “Private Army: Commanded by Dieter Sprockets. Remain inside Province X. No units may be removed or disbanded” or “Royal Army: Commanded by Hassel von Hoff. No movement of the army is permitted unless it is by Sir von Hoff.”

Instead of making a new post every time, each player should simply edit their original post to show whatever new orders they have, be it once per turn, once per Chancellorship, or never. This will keep the thread short and organized. All the Chancellor will have to due is scan that post at the beginning of each turn to see what the instructions are, no digging for information will be required. Plus, the players themselves have to create their own restrictions on the Chancellor. If you don’t give orders to the contrary, the Chancellor can do whatever he likes with your settlements and armies.

I think this is likely to result in another more realistic aspect to the game: lots of small armies scattered around the map. Most noblemen are going to want some personal military power just for their own security. Thus, each province will end up having restritions on what can be free removed from its defensive garrison. This will make the formation of large offensive armies require either a symptathetic Chancellor supporting a particular House, or a large army assembled from the resources of several Houses through IC negotiations. In medieval times, assembling a large army almost always required a lot of appeasement of the nobles who supplied the men. This would be mimicked in the game.

Since disbanding of units can be prevented by the noblemen, it’s possible that the faction could end up with financial problems because the military grows too large. I think that’s a good thing, as it will then force political negotiations on how to reduce costs and it will require IC solutions.

If it is determined that giving players this level of control over their own military units is not good for the game, the rules can be reverted to my original version which gave the Chancellor the ability to do what he wants, except for armies involved in a Civil War. To restore the rules to that format, the following needs to be done:

Restore Rule 1.4 to its old format:

Quote:

---

1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, move their avatars, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.

---

Delete the Chancellor’s Limitation on Powers #4.

Re-insert the deleted Rule 5.4:

Quote:

---

*5.4 – Involuntary Actions: The CHANCELLOR cannot disband or move any unit in an army or settlement belonging to a nobleman involved in a Civil War without the permission of that player.
(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Chancellor doesn’t have to give you reinforcements, but it would be unfair and unrealistic to let him reduce your Private Army to the minimum level right before a battle simply because he wants you to lose. If you prepare well enough before the Declaration of War, you should be able to fight for at least a short while even with a hostile Chancellor. Even then, it would probably be best to make sure the Chancellor is either friendly or at least neutral in the Civil War.

---

1.5 – Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, econ21, TinCow, 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, including * marked 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.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is to allow for things ranging from small events like “Earthquake! The Barracks in London is destroyed!” or “Market Hysteria! Unfounded rumors of an imminent shortage in iron supplies have caused a massive financial decline. 20,000 florins are removed from the treasury.” to moderate sized events lasting a few turns, such as “Major French Naval Invasion! 3 full stacks land near Dover!”. It could also include ‘quests’ like "A Crusade to Jerusalem has been called. The first nobleman to enter the city will receive the Crown of Thorns." The last line allows any unwanted events to be easily blocked. It’s not designed to unbalance the game in any way, just a mechanism to give it a little extra spice now and then.

2. Feudal Heirarchy

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The most significant changes to the game are the Feudal Hierarchy structure and the Civil War rules. They should be mostly self-explanatory, but I would like to explain some of the thinking behind them.

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.

Furthermore, if we don’t pay attention to the family tree, we can allow far greater freedom to players in allocating their allegiance. If we are not tied down by the family tree hierarchy, a player can switch loyalties to an entirely different House or even perhaps start a new House of their own. That would add major new political options to the game and make the feudal system that much more important. If you don’t like how your Lord is treating you, you could leave and pledge your loyalty to another Lord. It would also allow for the possibility of powerful families seizing control of multiple Duchies. Imagine if three of the four von Kastilien brothers had each gone to one of the other Houses. With enough political maneuvering, all four brothers could have all ended up as Dukes and ruled the Reich as a united family. This also allows for more flexibility on the number of Houses. Closely allied political Houses could unit to form a single massive House. Internal dissent could cause a House to split in two. Without limits imposed by the family tree, many more political possibilities open up. Thus, I have created the Feudal Hierarchy structure and the Oaths of Fealty, which I believe creates a decent feudal structure while at the same time allowing a great deal of flexibility.

One interesting aspect about this rank structure is that at the beginning of the game, there would probably not be anyone ranked higher than Count. Since the high levels require lower level vassals, and the ‘building block’ level of Baronet requires a province, the higher levels of power would only be ‘unlocked’ as our in-game faction gained territory. With the FACTION LEADER having access to many powers and continuing to hold influence through authority, this creates a very unique and historically accurate situation. In the early days, the FACTION LEADER will have far more political power than the noblemen, if he has a lot of authority. However, once the empire becomes large enough to support players at higher ranks, the FACTION LEADER’s relative voting power will diminish. This will accurately reflect the growing importance of the nobility throughout medieval Europe, as occurred historically.

Also, please note that the structure of the rule allows the GOVERNING BODY to easily pass legislation that alters a single rank without disturbing the overall ladder. We could even abolish ranks or add more into the ladder as needed without too many problems.

Second, one of the main focuses of the Feudal Hierarchy system is focusing the strength of the various ranks on their ‘Powers’ more than their influence. Higher ranks can simply do things that lower ranks cannot. Given the significance of some of these powers, it is in the interests of groups of allies to create an organized feudal ladder to propel their members as high as possible. A rival group of noblemen who have their ‘top dog’ at a higher rank than you do will have a significant advantage over you. This will make political alliances very important, thus encouraging roleplaying and IC maneuverings.

It is also important to note that this feudal ladder has to have people in the lower ranks in order to keep others in the higher ranks. In KOTR, a Duke was supremely powerful no matter how much his Counts may have disliked him. In this system, even a Grand Duke can be brought low if a single Baron defects. This will give the lower ranks some major bargaining power to ensure that they are not ignored in the political process. If you upset your vassals, you can find yourself demoted several ranks very quickly.

I would also like to point out that as part of the Feudal Hierarchy, the Influence system has also been completely overhauled. After discussion with econ21, we concluded that players do not need influence bonuses based on their rank, because high ranks already require them to have loyal vassals who should presumably be voting with them. Power should be gained by securing alliances and creating voting blocs, not by giving people unassailable voting power simply due to their rank. As a result, Influence is now almost completely based on stats, with the exception of the Chancellor who gets a permanent bonus for his efforts.

With this system, everyone gets at least one vote and all votes above 1 are determined both by their avatar’s stats and by their ability to climb the feudal ladder. Having ridiculously high stats will not help you if you cannot advance beyond the basic ranks. Advancing to high ranks will not give you great advantages unless you have the stats to exploit your position. This seems realistic to me and I think it will encourage RPing, greater attachment to avatars, and greater competition for army commands (which have a higher potential of generating stat bonuses) and well-developed cities (which can generate good traits and retinue from high-level buildings).

The Faction Leader will continue to use Authority as their Influence, since it is a good measure of their strength. Given that almost all players will be at 1 Influence in the beginning of the game, early Faction Leaders will be very powerful if they have the Authority to back it up, as it should be.

Also, this system greatly increases the benefits from serving as Chancellor. Since players get +1 Influence and +1 to their Stat Influence cap for EACH term they serve, hopefully we will see more people competing in the elections. People who are able to get elected multiple times (good politicking and RPing) can theoretically become significantly more powerful than others (though to a certain extent they would still suffer if they had low stats). In addition, people may start to weigh their votes far more heavily if they risk giving an opponent a permanent edge over them. No matter how 'capable' the player is, you're going to think twice about electing them a second time unless you are very close political allies. Even if he is somehow reduced to the rank of Knight, a two-term Chancellor could still potentially have as much influence as a Grand Duke. The 'in-term' bonus also makes sure that the Chancellor has far more say during Emergency Sessions that occur during his term, which is realistic. It will also make Impeachment a bit harder, as the Chancellor can theoretically command a good deal of voting power to block his own removal. (See the Rule 3.5 Commentary for more thoughts on Stat Influence.)

Finally, the KOTR requirement for a player to be ‘Knighted’ before leading an army has been removed. That was mainly an annoyance in-game and the title of Knight was usually handed out without any real meaning or purpose. A better solution is simply to restrict the military power of the ranks, such as in the ‘Penalties’ listed for Knights and Baronets. These army limitations for lower ranks would also make it very difficult for low ranks to rebel against their superiors unless they had a large coalition of support.

2.1 – Rank Gain and Loss: All noblemen enter the game at the rank of Knight. Noblemen will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a nobleman ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

2.2 – Gaining Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, noblemen gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple noblemen are part of the conquering army, the nobleman controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding nobleman is considered the conqueror. If no nobleman is involved in the battle whatsoever, the FACTION LEADER is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, econ21 will determine which noblemen receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per nobleman.

2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

2.4 – Retinue: At any time, a nobleman may give any retinue item/member they possess to another nobleman 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, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal. A nobleman’s retinue can also be transferred at the time of his death, if the transfer was specified in a valid Will.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

While this rule does allow for people to delete ‘negative’ retinue, it makes a lot of sense to me for role-playing purposes. A person’s traits are one thing… you cannot change your own personality. However, you should be able to exile, kill, or destroy any retinue in your possession if you want to. There’s no reason for a 10 piety avatar to have to deal with a Pagan Magician. Plus, allowing people to trade retinue will open up another avenue of political negotiations, which is always a good thing.

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman 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. A nobleman 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 GOVERNING BODY is in session.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The last line serves two purposes. First, it prevents vassals from reducing their lords’ voting power at the last minute before a vote. People should be able to know their exact voting power when going into a vote. Second, it makes the voting system easier to keep track of for those of us who have to do the math.

2.6 – Loyalty in a Feudal Chain: A Vassal’s loyalty is always to his Lord, even if his Lord is himself a Vassal of another nobleman. If a nobleman swears or breaks an Oath of Fealty, his relationship to his Vassals remains unchanged. In this way, a Lord can bring his entire chain of followers into the service of another nobleman without anyone else having to change their status. Similarly, a nobleman will take his entire chain of followers with him if he breaks his Oath of Fealty.

2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

These titles may also be altered to better suit the chosen faction (i.e. Earl instead of Count if playing England, Emir instead of Duke if playing as an Islamic faction).

Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baronet is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers per CHANCELLOR term, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 5 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers per CHANCELLOR term.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.

FACTION HEIR:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION HEIR
Influence: +1 to the Stat Influence cap
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s).
(2) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involved the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION HEIR will cast a tie-breaking vote.

FACTION LEADER:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION LEADER
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(4) Owns one Royal Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement they own.
(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 nobleman, if any, a Princess should marry.
(9) Once during his reign, the FACTION LEADER may automatically assume the post of CHANCELLOR. The FACTION LEADER must declare he is exercising that right at a GOVERNING BODY session; he will then be appointed CHANCELLOR with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the FACTION LEADER may also compete in normal CHANCELLOR elections at other GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(10) Can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(11) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION LEADER will cast a tie-breaking vote.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold another feudal rank except CHANCELLOR.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a FACTION LEADER, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the nobleman who is the new FACTION LEADER are instantly broken. The new FACTION LEADER takes control of all provinces owned by the previous FACTION LEADER, unless they were given away by a valid Will. The new FACTION LEADER retains possession of any provinces he controlled prior to inheriting the throne.

CHANCELLOR:
Requirements: Must have been elected CHANCELLOR
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, up to 5 Stat Influence +2, or the nobleman's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a nobleman serves as CHANCELLOR, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for noblemen who serve multiple terms as CHANCELLOR. The in-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER. The post-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER or to any nobleman who ceased to be CHANCELLOR because he was 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 nobleman’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the CHANCELLOR can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the CHANCELLOR to the extent that the GOVERNING BODY chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The CHANCELLOR must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the CHANCELLOR is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the CHANCELLOR can build whatever he likes. The CHANCELLOR may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the nobleman who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the noblemen who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the CHANCELLOR may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The CHANCELLOR must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, or fort if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, or fort gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This last line in Power #2 is particularly important to the game. It’s time to end the OOC debates about what can be done IC. If you don’t like what the Chancellor is doing, use IC means to stop him. The rules allow for many ways to do this, such as negotiation, impeachment, or even Civil War.

3. GOVERNING BODY

3.1 –Sessions: The GOVERNING BODY 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. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.

3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, noblemen may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other noblemen before they can be put to the vote.

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the GOVERNING BODY. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

*3.4 – Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass and can permanently modify the rules in any way, except for rules marked with a *.

3.5 – Influence: Each nobleman’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No nobleman’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a nobleman can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) nobleman’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) nobleman is married to a FACTION Princess.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

First, remember that Stat Influence is only useful if you have a rank that can make use of them. A lowly knight is not going to have the Influence potential of a Grand Duke, no matter how good his stats are. You have to advance your political position, as well as your avatar’s stats, in order to increase your Influence.

I think the Stat Influence requirements I have set forth in Rule 3.5 are pretty fair. Up to two points can be gained from each of Command, Chivalry, and Dread. One point can be gained from Loyalty and Piety at different levels, to take into account their starting bonuses (5 free Loyalty, 3 free Piety). So, essentially players get a potential +1 for every 5 ranks they gain in a stat. The 20, 30, and 40 markers also benefit the well-rounded characters. In general, I think this is a far better system and encourages roleplaying and player interaction to a greater extent than a simple bonus based on rank.

In addition, I have added two extra IC ‘achievement’ stats that I think will be nice. (j) is mainly a balance bonus that is designed to help out people who are unlucky enough to have avatars that get sent down a really bad trait line. They’re probably already losing a large amount of influence from that trait, so this is a bonus point to give them at least some small influence. It’s perfectly reasonably that even the most negative traits would bestow some kind of small influence, simply because the person is the “extreme” of that trait. For instance, perhaps Bob the Ugly is so amazingly hideous that people close their eyes when he is around, forcing them to listen to him more carefully. I considered making this rule apply to all trait-bestowed titles, but that will generally just result in a double-bonus for people with “good” titles. Since they’re already receiving stat bonuses from the trait, they don’t need an extra boost. Also, reducing the "good" and "bad" determinations to stat points will prevent any debate over what is good or bad. Essentially, if it causes you to lose more stats than you gain, it's bad. If you break even or gain stats, it's good.

(k) is an IC thing, and I think a very good one. It accomplishes two things. First, it gives more available stat influence to people who marry into the royal family, which is logical. Second, it gives the FACTION LEADER slightly more power. Since the marriage of a Princess is determined by the FACTION LEADER, this essentially allows the FACTION LEADER to give a permanent +1 to the Stat Influence cap of the nobleman of his choice. A powerful tool on the rare occasions it pops up, and one that could easily be used for political gain.

3.6 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

3.7 – 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).

*3.8 – Impeachment: The CHANCELLOR can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the GOVERNING BODY. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new CHANCELLOR, although the FACTION LEADER may also exercise his power to become CHANCELLOR at that point. The nobleman replacing the impeached CHANCELLOR serves out the remainder of the impeached CHANCELLOR’S term. All Edicts passed in the GOVERNING BODY session that elected the impeached CHANCELLOR remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.


4. Armies

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a much simpler implementation of the various Household Army rules. It is also necessary to allow for Civil Wars. Since we don’t have pre-defined Houses, the Private Armies belong to individual noblemen of rank. Large vassal chains can have multiple Private Armies, as befits their great power. Low ranking noblemen without allies will have little private military power outside their garrisons. You shouldn’t go to war without a military to back you up and you had best beware angering a nobleman with powerful military resources if you do not have the means to defend yourself.

4.1 – Private Armies: Private Armies will consist of a minimum of 3 infantry regiments, 2 ranged regiments, and 1 cavalry regiment. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.2 – Royal Armies: Royal Armies will consist of a minimum of 4 infantry regiments, 3 ranged regiments, and 2 cavalry regiments. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Royal Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If the personal control of military units provisions (see commentary for Rule 1.4) are kept, we might want to consider removing the “All regiments must be professional soldiers” part of Rules 4.1 and 4.2. Since the noblemen will have the ability to control the composition of their own armies, the Private/Royal Armies could simply be a ‘minimum number of units’ requirement which leaves the quality up to the politics of the game.

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: Only historical armies can fight battles (ahistorical stacks can be used for transport). No more than half the units in an army can be mercenaries. Crusader mercenaries (crusader sergeants, crusader knights, pilgrims, fanatics, great crosses, etc.) do not count as mercenaries. Crusades are exempt from restrictions on the number of generals. The maxima for each unit type by the number of units in the stack is:


Unit Type definitions (units can qualify for multiple Types):
Knights: All units with “Knight” in their name plus all heavy cavalry.
Cavalry: All mounted units.
Missile Inf: All dismounted ranged attackers, except artillery units and javelin units.
Heavy Inf: All heavy infantry units.
Other Inf: All unmounted units which do not qualify as Missile Inf or Heavy Inf.
Artillery: All units produced from the siegeworks and gunsmith line of buildings.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rule 4.4 is lifted from the KOTR rules. I am open to changes, particularly on the number of Generals in a stack, or even abolishing it altogether.

5. Civil War

*5.1 – Declaration of War: A nobleman must make a Declaration of War towards a specific nobleman in a public thread before they can attack any of that nobleman’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all noblemen of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the nobleman who makes the Declaration and the nobleman 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 noblemen in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target. Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, on the same turn that the Declaration of War was made. This rule does not limit movement in any way, nor does it prevent the target(s) of the Declaration of War from attacking the declarer(s).

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The restriction on when the declarer(s) may attack is designed to prevent complete surprise attacks. Since Civil Wars can start at any time, we risk having avatars be ambushed by full stack armies while riding alone. While this is realistic, it is also unfair and could ruin the game for some people. We need to balance the realism of PvP with the fact that this is just a game and we don’t want to create bad blood between the players. Dread should remain in the realm of IC actions, Chivalry should rule OOC actions. A one turn delay should be enough to allow anyone to get to an army, find allies, or surrender before their avatar dies.

*5.2 – 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 5.1, the nobleman who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the nobleman who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War. If a Civil War begins in this manner, any nobleman who would lose the right to own a Private Army as the result of the breaking of the Oath of Fealty will be allowed to retain ownership of his Private Army until the Civil War ends.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Civil War as a result of Oath breaking clause is designed for three purposes. First, it makes Oath breaking (and thus Oath swearing) a more serious thing. You’re going to think real hard about your actions if they might result in a war that you will lose. Second, it prevents noblemen from ‘poaching’ the provinces of others. Without this clause, it would be easy for a nobleman to join a House, get a province, and then break his Oath, taking his old House’s hard earned province with him. This can still happen, but this clause allows the House a chance to get their province back by force. Finally, the last line is designed to give noblemen the opportunity to fight for their survival before their power is totally stripped from them. By breaking an Oath, a nobleman can actually remove someone else’s ability to own a Private Army. This would seriously diminish their power. The last line gives a “use it or lose it” option for the person who is about to lose a Private Army. It does not apply to Royal Armies, because only Grand Dukes can ‘lose’ those and even then they’re just demoted back to a Private Army, not losing their army altogether.

*5.3 – Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all noblemen on one side are dead or all living noblemen on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Loyalty, and retinue of the noblemen 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 nobleman’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the GOVERNING BODY at the next normal session. Individual noblemen 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 Loyalty that tie them to any nobleman involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any nobleman who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Essentially, the people in the Civil War should be able to figure out the repercussions of it themselves. I imagine this will usually take the form of surrendering lands, disbanding Private Armies, becoming the vassal of the victor, giving up valuable retinue, losing their Barracks, etc. In order to ensure that this is not exploited as a method to circumvent legislation, the ‘binding’ terms of the Peace Treaty are limited to things that transfer spoils to the victor and penalize the vanquished. Everything else becomes a pseudo-Amendment, which is then considered at the next GOVERNING BODY session. In addition, the Neutrality section is designed to let players get out of a Civil War if they were dragged into it simply because they were a vassal of one of the warring parties.

5.4 – 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 econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose 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 Battle of Bern and the Battle of Trent and will be umpired by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. 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 econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. 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 econ21, TinCow, or anyone they 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.

(Commentary:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The “even if the armies have movement points remaining” gives a way for players to intercept one another. If you want to chase down an enemy who is fleeing, grab the save before he does. If you expect to be attacked, you could grab the save first and either move yourself out of range of the enemy or to a safer place, such as a settlement or bridge.

The ‘voting options’ section is designed to keep the game moving quickly. Since we will be allowing PvP combat at all times, and the ‘tabletop’ battles can take a week or more to play out (not to mention the effort required to create the map drawings themselves), the game runs a major risk of slowing to a crawl due to PvP battles. Thus, we want to make sure that only battles that the players in general feel are ‘important’ get the full tabletop treatment. If a PvP battle would be an annoyance to the majority of players, it can be resolved more quickly with an Abbreviated Tabletop Battle or an AI Battle. I very much believe that this kind of mechanism is necessary to keep PvP from bogging the game down.

(Closing Thoughts on Thread Management:)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

KOTR spawned a ridiculous number of threads. This made it hard for new players to locate some of the information they needed. I think in the future we should do our best to consolidate as much information as possible into a single Rules and FAQ thread. Instead of posting the rules at the first post of each OOC thread, we can do it once in a sticky thread and update it as needed. Perhaps that can be the intro to the Library thread. We can store all the useful ‘stat’ info there as well, such as the first post from the Chancellor’s thread which lists the active, inactive, and dead players. All that information is accessed frequently, especially by newbies, and it should be consolidated in one spot for ease of use.

I personally expressed a few peccadilloes about how the OOC threads were used earlier in the game. However, it seems clear to me now that people really do need a ‘chatroom’ to post in. The length and depth of these games naturally creates friendships between players and that should be encouraged. There isn’t really any other place at the Org where the players can post in that manner, so it has to be in the Throne Room. If all the rules and mechanics are removed from the OOC thread and put in a stickied thread, and all specific game-related announcements (i.e. Chancellor’s posts about battles pending) are also in a different thread, the OOC thread can exist on its own without needing to be a point of reference for anything. I would even go so far as to say to stop locking it and starting new threads after 500 posts unless the size somehow causes problems for the host server. If we can have a single massive thread to sink all OOC talk into, then perhaps the Throne Room would be a bit less cluttered and more organized. Furthermore, if no important information about the game is ever posted in the OOC thread, players won’t have to wade through mountains of posts to find something they need. They can stick to the much shorter information threads and avoid the chatter if they don’t have time for it.

I imagine having threads as follows:
Information Thread (Rules, List of Players, Library Info)
IC Diet Thread
OOC Thread
Personal Orders Thread (see Rule 1.4 commentary)
Chancellor’s Report/Game Management Thread
House Threads (managed by the players themselves)

I would like to request that the following be major areas for discussion of the draft rules:

1) What mod(s) should we use and what faction should we play?
2) Are the ranks balanced well? Too many? Too few? Do powers/penalties need to be altered, added, or deleted?
3) Are there better ways to handle PvP than what is suggested in Rule 5.4?
4) Does the added control over military units (see commentary under Rule 1.4) make sense? Will it work as intended? Will it slow the game down too much?
5) Are there any loopholes that need to be closed or important OOC mechanics that have not been covered?

Even if we accept the draft rules, all of these things need to be examined in detail to make sure they’re as good as they can be before we start the next game. A couple weeks of discussion now could save months of headaches down the road.

I'll post my general thoughts on KotR in a bit, since most of my suggestions to TinCow have already been discussed in private. For now, I want to say something about PvP.

I agreed to umpire the battle partially to see the Illuminati’s master plan go to fruition (econ’s post about just perhaps ending KotR in an essential freeze-frame absolutely terrified me) but also because I wanted to try my hand at PvPing, and I wanted to give the game as great of a send-off as it deserved.

I consciously tried to make everything as fair and realistic as possible. The Imperialists still did have outs: I believe that if they got their act together, organization-wise (in which they lagged far behind the Republicans), they had a chance. This never happened. Their best chance was early on, when they had the clear advantage in terms of quality of the Advance Guard. They lost it though when they didn’t move in Turn 1, giving the initiative to the Republicans. I pretty much knew then and there that the battle would go as the Illuminati had planned it. There was a subtle hint about Max Zirn in one of Ruppel’s feedback PMs and a more blatant one in the initial feedback PM to Péter (something along the lines of “you could be walking into a giant Illuminati trap”). If gibson or FH had picked it up, I don’t know what I would have done, but maybe I would have removed Northnovas and/or Ramses out of the picture had they responded correctly.

The battle, especially the later turns when combat was involved, took several hours for me per turn to simulate. I had to seriously screw with the files of the game, something I am always hesitant of doing, specifically to make this battle fair when simulating both sides. It ate up most if not all of my time for two weeks, and while it was worth it, it’s not an experience I want to repeat for a while. I know that econ21 expressed the same sentiment at the end of Will of the Senate when he had just finished umpiring the massive Battle for Rome PvP.

In the new PBM, I have already given my suggestions to TinCow on how to make it easier for the umpires. Even if the new system is adapted, I’m still not going to be your go-to guy for umpiring these things; hopefully I’ll share duties with econ21 when he comes back and/or someone else if they want to try their hand at it.

There might come the time, during your particular conflict, when there is no umpire available to do the battle, whether it be because the umpires are away, inactive, or simply fatigued. Be prepared to fight an MP battle if necessary, guys. Because these things, while clearly the best ways to resolve battles, take a lot of time to do properly.

I can't imagine how much time a huge battle like that took, GH. If the powers that be are ok with it I'd be happy to help out by umpiring some of the battles. I already play around with custom battles a lot to test things. I would need some advice on which files to change to simulate weakened units (halving the unit size for a unit of DFKs, for example) and such, but I believe I could handle it. :bow:

firstly, wow. These rules look great, so good in fact that atm I cannot find anything that I would like changed.

As for mods and factions I have three propositions:
Broken Crescent:ERE
SS 6.0 when it comes out
Roma Surrectum:Greek Cities.

We should have another poll once everyone has made their suggestions.

I like the rules. Are we going to run a test game after some initial hashing out?

Okay, my first comment is regarding army composition rules: I hate them. Passionately. During my term as Chancellor I didn't specifically violate any of them, but I did essentially ignore them for recruiting purposes. In Vanilla you'll tend towards all cavalry armies because they work, the game is just broken in that way. I have not found that to be the case in Broken Crescent, and if we use that mod I would prefer there to be no army composition rules or at least rules that are easier for the Chancellor to observe. Even as the Rajputs I only once built an army entirely of elephants, to face the Mongols. Perhaps I could suggest simpler hard limits on numbers but not relative numbers (i.e. Taking 5 elephants into battle is not allowed even in a full stack, but 4 by themselves are fine even without a supporting cast).

I know it doesn't make as much sense, but this system is going to work best with a lot of players. If the Chancellor has to systematically check through each of those player's forces, especially given that they can build their own armies in many cases, it will bog him down significantly.

Next comment: Ship recruitment doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the rules (If it is and I missed it pardon me). I'd like to see recruitment of ships tied into the Feudal system, such that no one below a certain rank (Duke? Lower? It may depend on faction) can recruit a ship, even if their settlement has the technical ability. This will allow us to assign the Faction Leader/Prince another power initially, and give more incentive to moving up the chain, while also emphasizing the possible differences between Dukes with coastal provinces and those without, etc. 'Purchasing' a fleet from a rival faction adds another layer of IC discussion.

I like the rank system. My one question is, how will ranks (Specifically Baronets vs Knights) be assigned initially? Turn 1 will see some people in more powerful positions than others, and the rest of the additions (Via recruitables) may start as Knights. Will it be random at first, or could we (Perhaps) randomly assign the Faction Leader and Heir and then let them start the rivalries off by selecting people to take the initial avatars. That might threaten to drag a bit much OOC into the IC start I suppose. :laugh4:

The PvP system is excellent IMHO.

Added control over military units is a necessary evil. It may result in longer turn times, only a test will tell for sure.

The only significant loopholes I see are regarding agents (Spies, Assassins, Diplomats). Will only the Chancellor control them, or will we allow a certain rank in the feudal system to start recruiting and ordering agents?

I'm all kinds of jazzed up and ready for this now! :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I would like to request that the following be major areas for discussion of the draft rules:

1) What mod(s) should we use and what faction should we play?
2) Are the ranks balanced well? Too many? Too few? Do powers/penalties need to be altered, added, or deleted?
3) Are there better ways to handle PvP than what is suggested in Rule 5.4?
4) Does the added control over military units (see commentary under Rule 1.4) make sense? Will it work as intended? Will it slow the game down too much?
5) Are there any loopholes that need to be closed or important OOC mechanics that have not been covered?

Even if we accept the draft rules, all of these things need to be examined in detail to make sure they’re as good as they can be before we start the next game. A couple weeks of discussion now could save months of headaches down the road.

---

1.) Title mods like BBB would work well for this. As for faction, I am confident we can adapt to any faction and read a few books on it.

2.) I like the ranks. Here is a question.

If I am a knight, and I conquer a province, it is mine?
If I am a knight, but beholden to TC, who is my Baronet, and I conquer a province, it is his? And then he can give it to me?
And if TC gives me the province, that would boost me up to Baronet? And him automatically to Baron?

Very interesting. So, 6 people with land can agree to push one of their members up to Grand Duke? Simply by agreeing who to push up the ladder?

Would it help if some of the requirements required 2 vassels instead of 1? That way it would limit the number of people in the upper rank. Otherwise, you might just see "clubs of 6" form and push their people up the ladder. Just a thought.

3.) PvP is good as is as long as we keep finding people willing to donate so much time to running them.

4.) It has the potential to slow things down. The more people that have to download/upload the save, the more chances for problems. I remember quite a few times sitting in the OOC thread waiting for a save to come back. A time limit is a possibility, but with battles sometimes you need a lot of time.

But, army ownership is fun and I see having people feel invested in something as a good thing.

5.) I guarantee that we will find loopholes that you could drive a bus through. No rules are perfect and we'll just have to roll with it. I'll try to let you know of any loopholes I think up. :D

I am a little worried that the game will require an exponentially increasing amount of people. Almost everyone playing will want to go up the ladder. That will require an influx of new people. Then those will want up the ladder. All of this will require more land to be taken. Once all of the interested people in the forum join, that is where the real jockeying for power will begin. Because those at the top will be scrambling to get players under them and out from under their opponents. Plus, if people start dropping out, I see it dragging the whole ladder down with them. Those at the top will see people drop out from under them and that will lower their own rank.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I like the rules overall but it's my habit to see how far the rules can be pushed and I see some real logistical limits to what were doing.

that is a good point, if a group of 6 forms and pushes on eup to Grand Duke the lowly Baronet could drop out and everyone would be demoted. Is it historically accurate for a Grand Duke to lose his Grand if a Baronet leaves him? I suupose that still could work and they'd just have to find a new baronet. but I agree it should be harder to get to the top rank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Ferret

that is a good point, if a group of 6 forms and pushes on eup to Grand Duke the lowly Baronet could drop out and everyone would be demoted. Is it historically accurate for a Grand Duke to lose his Grand if a Baronet leaves him? I suupose that still could work and they'd just have to find a new baronet. but I agree it should be harder to get to the top rank.

---

Or maybe what I'm worried about will just be solved by player's quest for moderation. I can see the ranks wildly swinging up and down in the beginning and when there is an influx or drop of players. But on further thought, what will probably be sought out by players is not "players" but "stable and reliable players". Sure, you can get a few newbies to join and move you up a couple ranks but they might leave in a week. What will get fought over is the small pool of regulars. This will probably cause the ladders to become more stable as a few factions develop and solidify their holdings.

I'm gonna need to change my pants.

Mmm, PK peripherally raises a good point (In addition to the ones he went at directly, of course). We need some kind of inactivity limitation rules to prevent people from collecting Baronets who are only in the game as a technicality and not really participating. von Essen, von Hapsburg, et al from the end of KotR for example.

Say, if a player under an oath of fealty doesn't declare themselves inactive they are required to demonstrate a minimum amount of participation in order to hold on to their position. For that minimum... voting in each Governing Body session? That'd leave ten turns at most for an inactive baronet to support someone.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

Okay, my first comment is regarding army composition rules: I hate them. Passionately.

---

As I noted, I am fine with getting rid of them altogether. I agree that they probably cause more problems than benefits. If the majority agree, I'll happily cut all of Rule 4.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

Next comment: Ship recruitment doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the rules (If it is and I missed it pardon me). I'd like to see recruitment of ships tied into the Feudal system, such that no one below a certain rank (Duke? Lower? It may depend on faction) can recruit a ship, even if their settlement has the technical ability.

---

Do you want to take ship recruitment away from the Chancellor? As it stands now, no one controls recruitment of any kind other than the Chancellor. Under 1.5, they can seize control of units the Chancellor recruits, but since the Chancellor holds the purse strings, the actual recruitment decisions are entirely up to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

I like the rank system. My one question is, how will ranks (Specifically Baronets vs Knights) be assigned initially?

---

Rule 2.2 handles this. Everyone starts as a Knight, but then the starting settlements are handed out by econ21 (or someone else, if econ21 isn't around). That will instantly promote everyone who receives a settlement to Baronet. If Oaths of Fealty are immediately sworn, higher ranks could theoretically be achieved on turn 1, but I doubt we'd see anything higher than Baron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

The only significant loopholes I see are regarding agents (Spies, Assassins, Diplomats). Will only the Chancellor control them, or will we allow a certain rank in the feudal system to start recruiting and ordering agents?

---

As it stands now, Agents would be 100% controlled by the Chancellor. I remember someone (GH?) proposing that a new 'Power' could be control over agents of various kinds, but that must've gotten lost in the shuffle. That's definitely something that could be added, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

If I am a knight, and I conquer a province, it is mine?

---

Only if you are not a vassal to someone else and were in command of the army. Every rank above Knight has the "All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property..." power, so a Knight who has a Lord will be subject to this rule. If the Knight is solo, he can definitely get his own province, but he would need an army in order to do it. Given his penalties, that is likely to be difficult. He probably won't get control of a Private or Royal Army without swearing fealty to someone, so he'd be limited to a half stack army. Getting even a half stack would be difficult unless the Chancellor gave it to you, because you have no ability to 'seize' units since you don't have a province to seize them from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

If I am a knight, but beholden to TC, who is my Baronet, and I conquer a province, it is his? And then he can give it to me?
And if TC gives me the province, that would boost me up to Baronet? And him automatically to Baron?

---

Exactly correct. Top Dog in the House gets all the provinces and then redistributes them however he wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Very interesting. So, 6 people with land can agree to push one of their members up to Grand Duke? Simply by agreeing who to push up the ladder?

---

Technically 7. 6 would be limited to Baronet, Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess, and Duke. You would need a 7th to fill the Grand Duke slot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Would it help if some of the requirements required 2 vassels instead of 1? That way it would limit the number of people in the upper rank. Otherwise, you might just see "clubs of 6" form and push their people up the ladder. Just a thought.

---

In my original structure, I had the Grand Duke requiring 2 Dukes, but the ranks of Baronet and Viscount were absent. So, a Grand Duke required 9 people (2 Barons, 2 Counts, 2 Marquesses, 2 Dukes, 1 Grand Duke). When I thought about it, I concluded that this was too many. 9 people is a really, really high number and I doubt we'd ever see that many people in an alliance. However, under that system dropping the GD requirement to 1 Duke resulted in a GD for a group of 5 people. This was way too easy, since a 5 person alliance is very doable and the GD is designed to rival the Faction Leader for power. So, I switched it to a 1 Duke requirement, but added in the Baronet and Viscount to hit a happy-medium requirement of 7 people for a GD.

That doesn't mean this is well-balanced, though. This is exactly the kind of stuff we need to be talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

3.) PvP is good as is as long as we keep finding people willing to donate so much time to running them.

---

I'm hoping people will come up with better systems for resolving these battles. Perhaps even using other computer games or web-based systems. At worst, we could just use the AI battles, which shouldn't take too much time. That would essentially be an Autoresolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I am a little worried that the game will require an exponentially increasing amount of people. Almost everyone playing will want to go up the ladder. That will require an influx of new people. Then those will want up the ladder. All of this will require more land to be taken. Once all of the interested people in the forum join, that is where the real jockeying for power will begin. Because those at the top will be scrambling to get players under them and out from under their opponents. Plus, if people start dropping out, I see it dragging the whole ladder down with them. Those at the top will see people drop out from under them and that will lower their own rank.

---

Yep, this is a concern and one that should be discussed. Fewer ranks could help this, but I think we would need to re-balance the powers if we cut some ranks. At the same time, I don't intended for every rank to be filled at all times. I personally think Grand Dukes should be very rare and hard to achieve. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 3-4 Chancellorships for the first GD to appear.

Also, it is my intention to advertise heavily for this game. I want to try and recruit a large body of people from all over the Org, and other forums as well. The system should make it pretty easy for people to join in at any time as well, so I'm hoping we'll get upwards of 20 players at the start, maybe even up to 30 at some times. Ambitious, perhaps, but I think it's achievable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

Mmm, PK peripherally raises a good point (In addition to the ones he went at directly, of course). We need some kind of inactivity limitation rules to prevent people from collecting Baronets who are only in the game as a technicality and not really participating. von Essen, von Hapsburg, et al from the end of KotR for example.

Say, if a player under an oath of fealty doesn't declare themselves inactive they are required to demonstrate a minimum amount of participation in order to hold on to their position. For that minimum... voting in each Governing Body session? That'd leave ten turns at most for an inactive baronet to support someone.

---

That's a very good point. That should definitely be done and I'll draw up some text for it. Also, one way of handling this is simply to have someone declare war on the inactive Baronet and squash him flat, taking his province. :2thumbsup:

Ironically, this structure will make characters like Becker to be "highly" sought after. Who wouldn't want a vassel who is perfectly happy to just run his county? Where Becker was not taken very seriously IC in KotR I see characters like him being considered "gold" by those who want to climb the ladder.

And remember too that even a Grand Duke can be brought low by a Baronet. High ranks will have to keep the low ranks happy, or they won't be high ranked for very long.

My comments about ships weren't clear (Those rules had stunned me or something); I meant to address more generally control of ships. If you are a Baronet and your province can recruit ships, can you sieze them immediately after recruitment for you own purposes like you can an army in your territory?

The last part of my comments were to suggest that I'd like the ability to take fleets to be restricted to higher ranks and the King/Prince. That way we won't have Baron von Wanderoff sailing to Arguin and setting up his own private fief as soon as the Chancellor sees a need for a ship. Alternately, we could very well have the King/Prince or eventually Duke diverting reinforcements meant for a distant province via ship.

Regarding Agents, I would very much like for nobles to be able to recruit agents (Perhaps not diplomats, seems rather pointless) to their service, capped by rank but not, I repeat, not subject to Feudal control. You don't turn over your spy to your Baron when you swear over. I think there are a lot of story possibilities around a particular noble who has a good spy network, even if he doesn't have a strong province or army.

:egypt:

That's a good point about the ships. I actually kind of like the idea of a splinter group of players taking control of a completely different area of the map, cut off from everyone else. It shouldn't be easy, though. At what rank would you suggest making that possible? Duke?

Also, I dug through my PMs and found the Agent discussion with GH. Here are the relevant parts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Powers: I think that powers of warfare, both "civil" and against the AI, should be more addressed. Viscounts and above own their own armies; they should have other people working for them as well. Thus, I propose the following for Viscounts and above:

(x) RANK may train [EITHER ONE OR UP TO TWO, DEPENDING ON RANK] non-priest agent[s] per full 10-turn CHANCELLOR term. These agents are under RANK's direct control unless RANK is loyal to a higher rank.

Agent warfare has definitely been a big part of the Hotseat campaigns and shown itself a little bit in the Swabian Civil War. I think it needs to be represented here.

Of course, it's an issue to be worked out how civil-war agent warfare will be managed, but I suppose we could play to percentages based on the agent's skill and the target's rank/influence/army size, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The agent idea is interesting, but I'd be concerned it would bring more problems than entertainment. Merchants are useless for individual Houses, since they only provide money. That would be fine if we could keep track of individual House finances, but as we saw with the old HRE Test, that's almost impossible to do. Similarly, Diplomats won't do a whole hell of a lot. Priests are nice for roleplaying, but don't bring anything major to a House except for rare circumstances where they need their provinces converted quickly. That leaves spies and assassins. While these are good agents to use, the question remains how to use them in Civil War settings. I really don't want to see players assassinating each other on a roll of the die, because that's no fun. Spies opening gates is possible, I guess, but also a potential balance problem. Perhaps the agent 'power' could be limited exclusively to Spies and Assassins, and they could be banned from use in a Civil War. Essentially, high ranks get one Spy and one Assassin each to use as they wish against the AI, but not against other players.

---

If we're planning on 20-30 people, we may want to think about how big of a mod we'd be downloading. The smaller the mod, the more likely I can do it. I'm sure my parents would leap at the chance to get my out of this game. If that means sacrificing myself for the greater good, so be it. I did ejaculate when I read the rules, however. (Not really, proverbially)

There's one thing I've been wondering about, although it may just be that I've missed something. How do units not from private/royal armies figure into Civil Wars? If the Chancellor favors one side, can he give extra units to their knights? Or can he recruit extra units for the private armies of one side, while only doing the minimum he is required to (not disbanding units, retraining) for the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

There's one thing I've been wondering about, although it may just be that I've missed something. How do units not from private/royal armies figure into Civil Wars? If the Chancellor favors one side, can he give extra units to their knights? Or can he recruit extra units for the private armies of one side, while only doing the minimum he is required to (not disbanding units, retraining) for the other?

---

Under the current rules, the Chancellor can disband units that are outside a garrison, fort, or Private/Royal Army. So, if the Chancellor is actively hostile to you and you are in a Civil War, any units you have outside of these groupings will be vulnerable to his manipulations. Even if you do keep your units from being disbanded, the Chancellor can simply refuse to give you further recruitment, while giving your enemy lots of recruitment.

As you can see, Civil Wars can be very tricky for people on the Chancellor's bad side. However, it can be done in a few ways. First, if you stockpile enough of a military beforehand, you could win before attrition takes its toll. A House with 3 decent sized Private Armies could probably beat a house with 1 Private Army, even if the Chancellor was hostile to them. Similarly, if two Houses attacked a third together, they could overwhelm a House that the Chancellor favored.

What it breaks down to in the current system is that having the Chancellor on your side is a major bonus, and having him against you is a major problem. If you're planning on attacking someone else and you do not have a significant advantage in strength, it would be best to get someone friendly in office first.

Then again, if the Chancellor is that much of a problem and you can't avoid a Civil War, you could always just kill the Chancellor and trigger a new election... :laugh4:

Commentary as I read-

1.1 - In terms of Mods I was keen originally keenon Europa Barbarorum or Deus lo Vult, but seeing as how most people prefer MII and Stainless Steel incorporates many similar improvements to Deus lo Vult, I think Stainless Steel would be our best bet. No matter how good Broken Crescent is, it just feel wrong to play MII:TW without England, France, the HRE and Spain.

1.3,1.4 - 1.3 is definitely the correct choice, and I am just in love with 1.4. I could not imagie that aspect being dealt with in a better way than what Tincow describes in his commentary. Certainly every Avatar should be given at least enough rope to hang themselves with.

1.5 - I like the idea in general, and I'm glad that there's a way to counter it should we so desire. However, one thing that I did not like about post-cataclysm KOTR was the detachment between the military forces of our enemies and the reality of thier military situation. It would be one thing to consolidate and move AI units that alreay exist, but to go back to adding multiple full stacks of heavily upgrading troops at regular intervals would be to repeat KOTR's worst mistake.

2 - I see no problems with how these rules are written, and I am greatly looking forward them. However, I do have a few questions and suggstions. I believe that Faction Heirs should get royal armies. It seems impossible for the heir to the throne to *not* be royal. I would like the power "Owns one ____ Army, above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals." to be clarified, specifically the meaning of the "above and beyond" portion. Finally, it seems a little odd that the title of 'Grand Duke will most likely be achieved a fuedal pole rather than feudal tree.

3,4,5 - Everything looks good here.

I agree with Ramses thoughts about ships. In my opinion navies in the rules should function similar to armies, except maybe requiring a higher rank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I would like to request that the following be major areas for discussion of the draft rules:

1) What mod(s) should we use and what faction should we play?
2) Are the ranks balanced well? Too many? Too few? Do powers/penalties need to be altered, added, or deleted?
3) Are there better ways to handle PvP than what is suggested in Rule 5.4?
4) Does the added control over military units (see commentary under Rule 1.4) make sense? Will it work as intended? Will it slow the game down too much?
5) Are there any loopholes that need to be closed or important OOC mechanics that have not been covered?

Even if we accept the draft rules, all of these things need to be examined in detail to make sure they’re as good as they can be before we start the next game. A couple weeks of discussion now could save months of headaches down the road.

---

1.) I haven't tried SS, but if it's a better version of vanilla MTWII, then I'm all for it.

I definitely think we should play as France. Firstly, apart from the HRE, France was the most splintered kingdom until the late Middle Ages, making it perfect for feudal chains to form. Secondly, unlike England, it isn't on an island, which would reduce the effectiveness of the AI even further still.


I think the rest of the rules are essentially fine.

Just one question. How will the initial settlements and avatar be distributed out? What criteria will decide who gets what?

1. If I had my vote, we wouldn't use a mod. I've never used one so I don't know what all the hubbub is, but it just causes extra pains for me. Greater good prevails though - maybe an imitator game like Frozen Crusade could revive or another one could spring up if you decide to use a mod and I can't join up.

2. I love the ranks. Keep them exactly how they are.

3. Abbreviated PvP is gold.

4. I like it, I love it.

5. I haven't caught anything, but I'm no lawyer.

The only problem I can see with the rules is that the Faction Leader can't have vassals. This means that the Faction Leader will have to maintain his authority with one royal army. Not easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Just one question. How will the initial settlements and avatar be distributed out? What criteria will decide who gets what?

---

I think the people who ask, should be the last to get them. :clown:

And the people who quote those people to make a snarky comment, should be the second last. Oops... :embarassed:


But in more seriousness, I have an idea for another power. What about guilds? Is that something we want to decide with edicts? Or can a certain rank decide what guilds get accepted in his area. A certain rank already has the power to destroy a building. I am assuming this includes guild buildings. It would make sense for a certain rank (maybe Duke or Marquis) to tell the Chancellor "accept Merchant guild for this town and no Assassin Guilds in any of my lands."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

The only problem I can see with the rules is that the Faction Leader can't have vassals. This means that the Faction Leader will have to maintain his authority with one royal army. Not easy.

---

I agree. Historically speaking, I believe the major difference between a King and other lords was of quantity, not quality. I imagine Tincow was worried about giving the FL too much power, but I'm still curious as to why the rules expressly forbid nobles from swearing fealty to the King. Since the King is at the top of the chain, every lord who has not sworn the oath of fealty to another lord serves the King by default, otherwise he wouldn't be in the faction.

This reminds me, what are the rules for deciding the rules? :smash:

My thought on the FL were that technically everyone was supposed to be loyal to him, so what's the point of having people who are vassals and those who aren't? Is it really possible to have someone who isn't a vassal in a monarchy?

In any case, with the current system there's no benefit to swearing fealty to a FL anyway. The FL is chosen by the computer, so there's no way we can make a vassalage requirement for it. Technically a lowly Knight could become FL, whether we like it or not. The FL already has a ton of power, since he's the only person who starts the game with the ability to have an army. Plus, he can exercise vetos, ban people from the Diet, gets far more votes than most people, and he gets a free Chancellorship which he can use to boost his own military strength greatly. Does he really need more?

I'll respond to the questions I've skipped and start working on some edits tomorrow. Keep the questions/comments coming.

1. What is the incentive behind swearing fealty? It seems like everything to do after swearing makes your assets go to your lord.

2. If you break fealty, do you keep all settlements your lord assigned to you? Or all settlements you had originally captured? Nothing?

3. I think knights should not even have a vote, not be allowed to propose legislation, and only be able to lead quarter stacks to reflect that they are not really nobility or at the very best, landless nobles.

3a. As a result, those priviledges ought to be divided more smoothly over the next few ranks so that swearing fealty actually means something. Say Baronet can vote and propose edicts, but amendments cannot be proposed until there is a viscount (this should also let us play with original rules for longer at the start). Barons should also only be able to lead a 3/4 stack, so until you get your own private army, you cannot have an army that is larger than that of a higher noble for instance.

3b. Alternatively, we could have an upper and a lower house. The upper can vote on amendments as well while the lower cannot vote on amendments.

4. I think a rule is necessary regarding chancellors cancelling construction. Say a building is almost done and the new chancellor hates that other house. He could just remove this 6 turn building from the queue, but that wouldn't be exactly nice (and probably should thus be legislated against) as it was paid for during the previous term already. Similarly, if that was a human error and turn ended, the building's actual turns should be kept track of and constructed via console afterwards (minus the funds that were returned via cancellation)

5. Will there be any positive events rather than negative ones only?

6. Are nobles that swore fealty bound to cast their vote as their lord commands or can they vote their own way during session?

7. How are adoptions handled?

8. How are guilds handled?

9. 3.2 and 3.4 need to be amended to reflect those ranks that can propose without secondment.

10. May I suggest that at least 6 command points are needed for +1 stat influence? and 21+ totals are needed for +1 stat influence?

11. I would like to suggest an army composition that does not have overlaps. This means knights are knights, cavalry are cavalry and heavy infantry are heavy infantry. So if you have a GB, it won't count as cav + knight for instance. This way we can lower the cap on knights and specify what is a knight and what isn't. This is especially true for late game where some units are counted as professionals rather than knights (i.e. gendarmes, lancers, armored swordsmen)

12. What happens if a civil war is declared on someone who is absent from the game?

13. Regarding mods, I am obviously partial to my own mods. But would agree to another mod if it does not require kingdoms.

I think the incentive to swear fealty has to be provided by the person to whom you're swearing your oath. If the mechanics of the game made it too beneficial to become a vassal the accumulation of power would be easy.

:egypt:

Although I did not participate in KotR I think the LTC would fit perfectly into something like this. One year per turn, vastly improved AI and unit re-balancing. You have to build a nation from the ground up etc etc, and you dont need kingdoms.

I cant wait to join in the next PBM:yes: