Please treat this poll like the KOTR Legislation polls. Pick one answer for each of the 'questions' numbered 1 through 8. Abstain if you don't like any of the answers. Feel free to elaborate your answers with posts as well.
Printable View
Please treat this poll like the KOTR Legislation polls. Pick one answer for each of the 'questions' numbered 1 through 8. Abstain if you don't like any of the answers. Feel free to elaborate your answers with posts as well.
Just so there is no confusion between how I voted, and what I have said in the other thread, I want to make something clear. How I voted is my "preference". But, if others want different rules, then I'll try to figure out how to make those rules work like I've been doing.
I prefer that we work with what TC has already made, with maybe a few tweaks here and there. I believe his rules will allow flexibility and it will be up to people in the game to make it stable.
That's just my view on it and we'll see what others want.
Ironically, the only thing we can agree on is that the rules don't make our heads explode. :sweatdrop:
haha, when i say land should be rentable i think that shouldnt help with the prerequisites of a rank.
huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
You did vote for both Land being tied to rank and to allow renting, so I assumed you linked the two.
And Cecil is right, about the rules. It is a testament to TC's writing skills that no one's head has exploded yet. :clown:
I think he's saying that renting land shouldn't count towards the rank prerequisites for the guy doing the renting, only for the actual owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Ah ok, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
No problem. I had to think about it for a few seconds to come up with that possible interpretation. :yes:
Personally, if we allow land renting I like Tincow's idea of restricting the powers of bonded nobles. Otherwise I think there will be too little reason to accept a proposition to rent land. I just hope it doesn't end up being too complicated. :sweatdrop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I should probably explain my answers on #4 and #7. If the feudal structure is changed to branch out (something I voted in favor of), I think one or two ranks would have to be cut out to make it possible for anyone to achieve the highest ranks. If the feudal structure remains linear, I think the current number of ranks is perfect.
Branching out will definitely require cutting at least one rank, possibly more depending on how much branching is done. One rank can easily be cut without causing many problems. Cutting two ranks would probably require one or two powers to also be removed to preserve balance.
If the Feudal structure was branched out, how would it be done? If the vassal requirements for every rank doubled (i.e. two baronets to become a baron, etc.) I think at least two ranks would have to go, or it would be extremely hard to even get up to a middling rank. How they would then best be balanced I have no idea. :sweatdrop:
No, it would definitely not be doubling each requirement. The best method would probably to increase the requirement of just one rank. The difficulty in achieving high levels will depend on which rank is chosen. For instance, if the requirement for Grand Duke is 2 Dukes, it will take 13 people to make a Grand Duke. However, if the double requirement is placed at the Count level, it will only take 10 people to make a Grand Duke. Cutting out a single rank will drop these numbers by 2 each, since I'd cut the Baronet and make the Baron the building block rank. Multiple branching would not be advisable because it would make the high ranks essentially impossible to achieve without cutting 3 ranks or more, which I don't think is a good idea.
The only other option I see to changing the requirements of one rank is to offer a variety of promotion methods, such as I proposed before with the "OR" language. However, the OR system might not be balanced. I'll give this poll a few days for everyone to speak up before trying to figure out what the best solution is.
Ok, so far the results are interesting. The vast majority agree that the rank structure is stable enough as it is, that the low level ranks are balanced properly, that the high level ranks are not too hard or too easy to achieve, and that the rules are comprehensible. All of these are essentially 'status quo' votes.
However, there are a few areas that most people agree need to change and there's some conflict of a few issues. The majority want a branching system of some kind instead of a linear system. While the majority also think the number of ranks is fine as it is, a large minority think there's too many ranks and no one thinks there are too few ranks. As mentioned previously, branching out will require the elimination of at least one rank in order to preserve balance, so I think that will have to be done. At the same time, we're very split about both land rental and land ownership factoring into rank.
After I get the Test Game started, I'll do some brain storming and see if I can come up with several different options for new branching feudal structures and land rules. We can then discuss those and vote on them.
I'm rather impressed that with all that support regarding making knights only able to vote if a vassal no one besides me voted that option in this poll.
I think one of the reasons why the results are the way they are, is because a lot of "regulars" who posted in the discussion thread have not voted yet, like AG, FD, GH, and OK.
So far, we have yet to have one exploded head. I'm impressed... ^_^
hi All,
I haven't voted because I'm not up to date with everything that has been said, but I'll mention part of what I said in the stickied thread.
The thing with us playing the HRE was that it was very fragmented and did fit with the way things were being played in the actual game.
Keep in mind there we far more stable and "controlled" Kingdoms back then. If we play some type of semi feudal system it might seem very out of place to the point of being unrealistic in comparison with what was happening at the time. I say this because I expect most of us to start reading about the kingdom we choose when that is finally done. The more realistic it is, the better it will be for the game and our roleplaying abilities.
As for the land question...well fuedalism was based entirely around land ownership...if you had it then you had power...if you didn't, well, then you where in a bit of trouble.
Having said that, I think it will complicate the situation dramatically if we have some type of hybrid system. We should try for a simple and "representative" type feudal system, rather than trying to simulate things too much.
I'm sure we'll find a decent balance. We'll take this discussion slow and make sure every issue is addressed before we start the new game. Most of us wanted a break after KOTR to recharge the batteries, so I'm not in a rush on anything. Even if things turn out not to be balanced well, we can always amend the rules mid-game it something becomes problematic. That was one of the best rules econ21 created for WOTS: the ability to simply change them by the consent of the players.
Econ's rule has to be the first rule :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Then I'd say we are fine. I'm also recharging the batteries TC.
God knows how you did everything...I'm still recovering from all the Arnold/Illuminati work...
We did a pretty good job though. In the end I'd put a W in the win/loss column, not that it was competative or anything. It was certainly a satisfying end after all that scheming, made all the better because of the guy's playing. *grin*
I think adding ORs might be the way to go if balance can be preserved. Of course we won't know if the game's truly balanced until we begin playing.
I'm against renting land. It adds complications. A part of the game should be picking people you trust, or have successfully intimidated, and that entails risk.
I think we have too many ranks, we certainly need more than two (Count and Duke) but the game should reward quantity as well as quality in coalitions.