Possible LotR Successor Game discussion thread

There has been a fair amount of talk about a possible new game after this is finished. I figured it was best to give the discussion its own thread. :yes:

Here's a link to where the bulk of the discussion thread started in the LotR OOC thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...06270&page=103

The main issues brought up so far, compiled by Woad, with the addition of the issue on mercenaries from YLC.

-easier names
-shorter distances [or possibly longer move rates]
-possibly axe the RBGs
-place more focus on inter-character conflict instead of on civil war conflict.
-possible changes in how mercenaries are hired to give some extra options to players

Other things discussed the change to a somewhat more familiar faction (largely resulted from issue 1 up there) and possibly a different mod, as move rates in SS are low and distances high (could also be a result of the region we chose for the last game, as the east has fewer, bigger provinces in general).

i think that if u play france for instance, the distance issue is far less than it was now.

Or else you can always introduce a system per console?

Say you request a move_character in turn A and then are prohibited to do anything for turn b & c.
turn D the admin or whatever moves you per console to the requested destination

Hmm...one of the Issues you brought up about England can be resolved pretty quickly actually since England can easily get to Scandinavia pretty quickly. Plus, the distance is not enormous either and is actually pretty reasonable. This would give England several fronts - France, Scotland, Scandinavia, Spain at least, if that doesn't rule out a crusade into Outremer. Also, take into account Russian expansion and possible trips to Pomeriania - I think the only people safe from the English are the Hungarians :idea2:

Plus, they have Longbowmen, stakes, Swordsmen galore, stakes, Halberds, stakes...um...yeah and stakes. I just like the semi-professional appeal of the English armies.

Is England to Scandinavia a shorter distance than Anatolia to Egypt?

Mostly I'm thinking of a "War of Words" situation. Say the "Count" (or whatever title he has) of Scandinavia has a conflict with the Duke of Edinburgh and starts a Civil War. Will it be less of a hassle for one to reach the other than when Tristan and Iggy wanted to fight it out?

I like England's roster as well, and think they work well with the rules as written (although I'm also fond of factions with muskets and other late era troops, like Spain and Venice). Maybe the issue of far flung territories could be partly resolved by toning down the 2 units per ship rule and making it easier for players to get their own ships that can't be taken away (at least not easily).

Could you explain your idea about mercenaries in greater detail? It sounded interesting...

England has some of the most incredible units in the game (And, yes, I know I complained about that with the Vards in LotR too, but SS 4.1 ripped the Vards down to size) with retinue longbowmen. I actually played a campaign where I used nothing but longbowmen for battles and beat the game. No generals, no cavalry, no artillery, no spears or infantry of any kind. Whipped the Mongols too, but didn't feel like playing all the way to the timurids, whose long range and elephants would've presented a problem.

IMHO we should consider the Danes. They have a very strong, fun cultural context and an unusual set of troops without any of the really broken types (Few lance cavalry units, no stakes, no early HA, etc.). Plus it's the right mindset to play a viking; a crafty, violent, over-the-top conqueror!

Oh, and if we do the Danes I promise to play a closet Odin worshipper. :laugh4:

I would also like to suggest that we consider changing a few things to encourage conflict more directly. Firstly I think voting should be tied directly to land and only to land. One province = one vote with the exception of the King (And perhaps prince?), who has a set number of votes on the presumption that all the lands are his in truth.

Second if you kill someone you should gain title to all the lands that were theirs when you declared war (Thus preventing someone giving their territory away to prevent it's loss during the war).

Third if you kill the Megas you should become Megas for the remainder of his term. It's not an easy thing to do given all his power, let's reward it handsomely.

Fourth if you kill the King you should become King. Ditto above. We can have the 'legitimate' heir become a rebel by default under these circumstances.

You can see where I'm going with all this. Conflict drives these games, let's generate a lot of it!

I would also like to see a rule put in where any two players who are amenable to fighting each other can ask for a teleport to a mutually agreed site for their battle immediately, or after a set number of turns.

One other suggestion that I have would be to create a 'blood feud' between two groups as the starting position of the game. Two veterans take characters and have them absolutely hate each other from turn one, which will tend to polarize those around them. We lacked that in LotR and it showed in how weak our early game 'fighting' was.

Some things to think about. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

What are everyone's opinions about returning to vanilla? That would take care of both the distance and the name problems.

Also, are the Sicilians worthy of consideration?

That's a lot to take in, Ramses. :clown:

Nearly any half decent unit in player hands is a game killer, and some very weak ones. I can take out decent sized stacks with a Border Horse unit (or even a militia horse unit, if it has a spear or lance). I wouldn't put too much emphasis on whether the faction has very strong units, as we will cream the AI regardless. People capture settlements with just their general. Note the tiny, all heavily depleted army Tristan is going for Alexandria with. I bet everyone here is sure he can do it with that army, or even half that army.

RPing and having fun, on the other hand, should be paramount if we're talking units. I really like the Danes for that reason as well. :2thumbsup: I love Russia's units as well, although we'd have to expand westward if we didn't want to recreate the distance problem. Spain and the Italian factions have neat rosters as well.

I like a lot of the ideas to encourage pvp, although I would note there are players who dislike it, so would encourage the kind of interaction we had in KotR as well, with competition that didn't always result in war.

A way for opponents in a Civil War to meet each other right away is much needed. I like the idea of gaining land titles and preventing giving land away in the middle of the war.

With our Megas/Chancellor position being elected, I'm not sure you should gain their rank if you kill them. It seems odd from an rp standpoint. Titles and the crown, on the other hand, might work very well. :yes:

Starting an early IC conflict sounds great, although I'm not sure I'd mandate it. Talking to the people who get the starting avatars would probably be enough. :yes:

Woad I'm definitely up for vanilla with at most vanillamod, if other players are. Otherwise some sort of mod that doesn't change too much, like the one in Cecil's game (LTC). :yes:

Edit: I rather like the Sicilian roster as well (and no really overpowered units), and their central position will make things easier.

Well, first and foremost, I think we should move back to Western Europe. Possibly France (but I may be biased since I lobbied for that as our LotR faction), possibly one of the Italian factions, I'm thinking Milan, then Venice, then Sicily. The territories are small enough to provide, the names are pronounceable, and there's plenty of room to expand.

I'd also like to put more power in the hands of the executives, specifically the equivalent of the Chancellor/Megas Logothetes position. As Ignoramus posted in the OOC thread, I think it would provide a lot of incentive then the current game manager that the position pretty much is now.

I'm not sure how I feel on manufactured conflict. On one hand, it seems to go against the organic qualities that we look for. On the other hand, I know that I was personally very appreciative of having a background for all five of my avatars in KotR that I could use as a springboard as opposed to my brief avatar in LotR's total lack of direction. For example:

- Heinrich: I hate the Pope and will spend the rest of my life trying to get even with him
- Conrad Salier: I'm a religious dude and just found out that my parents were Mandorf and a female Cardinal that almost became Pope.
- Jens Hummel: I want to restore dignity to the Hummel family.
- Dietrich von Dassel: I must avenge the death of Jens Hummel by destroying the Illuminati's enemies.
- Herrmann Steffen: I came of age in the aftermath of the Cataclysm and am struggling with my Illuminati values.

In short, organic conflict is great, but manufactured conflict is a wonderful way to start things off. :yes:

Hmm, I'm torn between England and the Danes.

An England game would be feudal based, and has the potential for some lovely short and sharp minor civil wars.

The Danes have the tempting scenario of playing Viking-style, and raid all over the place, but it does present the problem of people being far away from each other.

In short, I'm really torn.

If anyone wants a small bite of what an English game might be like, have a look at Magna Carta. It was a short-lived KotR-styled game.

I like Ramses' suggestion of 1 province = 1 vote. It makes sense. If you own half the land of England, then why shouldn't you effectively decide what happens?

The problem I have with the Danes is that as far as I know they only start off with a King and a Prince. If they have another starting avatar or a family member that will come of age soon I'm fine with the Danes.

what I remember about the factions we've been discussing...

England
King
Prince
Princess(maybe 2?)
Other guy
4 territories

Spain
King
Prince
2 Princesses
Other guy
2 territories

Danes
King
Prince
Princess
1 territory

Sicilians
King
Prince
Princess
Other guy
2 territories

Sicily and the Danes sound great as faction choices in my books. For my part I'd probably be interested in starting off the same way I did in LotR, with a princess or another supporting type character, if everyone is agreeable to that. I promise to try to promote some sort of conflict. :smash:

Does anybody not have Kingdoms? I think a faction in the Britannia campaign would be very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Does anybody not have Kingdoms? I think a faction in the Britannia campaign would be very interesting.

---

:raises hand:

D'oh. Well, so much for that. Obviously, we can't leave anybody out.

I do have Kingdoms, but I have ample sympathy for those without it. I think we should stick with Vanilla-ish mods.

:egypt:

I don't have Kingdoms because of the DRM protection. I've heard some nasty things about it and since my TW computer is a family computer I don't want to risk putting anything like that on it. However, I'll get a shiny new Mac with both Vista and Leopard installed sometime in May/June. The vista portion would be almost soley for gaming so I'd be willing to put Kingdoms on that.

So in short, don't let me hold you guys up if you want a Kingdoms campaign. If you go that route I'll join later once some more avatars are available.

Milan and Venice have pretty good starting family trees, if I remember.

It's good to see the discussion going. :2thumbsup:

As a side note, what do people think of me being the gm? I have some experience doing so for hotseats, as well as experience with the console. I've had a taste of running pvp battles. I've also talked a bit with TinCow about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Milan and Venice have pretty good starting family trees, if I remember.

---

I think that Venice isn't a viable option because Crete is so far away from the rest of their provinces.

My issue with Milan is that I imagine all Milanese to be max dread backstabbing pschyco loons with a taste for assasins and human flesh. Also, their crossbowmen look like turtles. I would be willing to play them but they aren't at the top of my list.

I'm fine with Zim being GM:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

My issue with Milan is that I imagine all Milanese to be max dread backstabbing pschyco loons with a taste for assasins and human flesh. Also, their crossbowmen look like turtles. I would be willing to play them but they aren't at the top of my list.

---

:laugh4:

As for Zim being the GM, I trust him to be fair and creative enough for the job. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

:laugh4:

As for Zim being the GM, I trust him to be fair and creative enough for the job. :yes:

---

Seconded.

Also, I like the idea of playing as Milan. We'd be pretty good at annoying the crap out of the other factions. :laugh4:

back to mechanics for a second...

I like the idea of tying voting power to land. However, I think that having it purely like that would discourage the original house leaders from distributing their land to their vassals. I think it would be better if a house leader's voting power was based off of the total number of settlements that the house posesses. The members of the house would still have their voting power tied directly to the amount of land they personally own.

Zim definitely gets my stamp of approval as GM. For every lengthy PM you see in the Battle of Edessa thread there were three that you didn't see that was just us going back and forth, setting the exact guidelines. He is beyond acceptable. :yes:

Another thing about Milan is that it will nullify the professional army aspect. In the later game, when we should be steamrolling the AI, it'll still be a challenge because our militia units will have to deal with Feudal Knights.

How about basing it on the number of landed vassals? Or is that too complicated? It would give an incentive for house leaders to distribute land to as many vassals as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

How about basing it on the number of landed vassals? Or is that too complicated? It would give an incentive for house leaders to distribute land to as many vassals as possible.

---

I'm also fine with this suggestion. I just want to try to avoid province hording as much as possible.

On another note, I think that 4 houses is probably the optimal number. Would we be willing to recruit 1 or 2 RBGs in the begining to get the ball rolling and then agree not to recruit anymore?

I have one major proposal to introduce: only family tree members may own land. Children are automatically vassals to their father unless they manage to gain their independence through some mechanic.

The power in LotR may have been a little diffuse and the system too democratic. I think the house structure in KotR made for more tightly knit (or bitterly split) houses. If you were born a Franconian, you were going to remain a Franconian. If you got on your Duke's bad side, you would be in serious trouble. It made the people at the top more powerful, but that meant that their personal conflicts would get amplified as the conflicts in the state. The house structure was not constantly shifting, which made it easier to remember.

We should certainly not do away with the RBGs, but they should be considered lower, non-royal nobles. They should be considered to have land, but only smaller fuedal feifs, not "visible" on the map. The provinces should go to the royals. We should also do away with independents, you should only be able to become a noble by being sponsored by an existing royal (this would be the equivalent of choosing one of the houses in KotR). That way, everyone has a patriarch. (In the alternative, they should all be independents, with adoption being the only way to enter a house).

Social mobility would be greatly reduced (not that it was very high in the middle ages), but beside Tagaris, there were few who were able to take much advantage of it in LotR. The people who started at the top remained at the top. The best service to provide to the serfs is not better social mobility, but more cohesive teams, so that they can participate in the grandoise plans of their Dukes.

I think we should stick with one province = one vote. If you give one to someone else you better feel pretty confident of their loyalty or of your ability to take it back. I didn't like the feudal system in LotR, I never had the foggiest clue what rank anyone was, including myself, and it didn't seem to make any difference in the play of the game. Quickly, without looking it up, name the rank of any of the house leaders at the 'end' of LotR and name one time they used one of their rank powers.

Besides, if you want a province go conquer one like the rest of us. :beam: Vassals shouldn't have land handed to them just because, they should have to ask for it, earn it, and be worthy of it.

I think the dynamic of the game will become very interesting very quickly if we let some players/houses accumulate voting power, at least as long as we give them interesting things to vote on.

:egypt:

Thank you for the vote of confidence, guys. :bow:

Tying voting influence to land is an interesting idea. We'd have to rewrite a lot of the influence rules from LotR.

I like the idea of tying it to number of landed vassals, as that would discourage not only single players hoarding tons of land solely for themselves but also reduce the advantage of grabbing a couple dozen provinces from the AI. We could achieve this by basing influence on number of provinces and having influence caps per rank, or just a specific rule specifying that influence = number of landed vassals.

We would have to work out a couple things, though. For one thing would all members of a House (assuming we use the current ranking and feudal chain system) benefit from the improved influence? So leader guy with 7 vassals has that much influence, his 2nd has 6 influence, and so on? This means if one House became marginally bigger than another it gains a ton of influence. Or perhaps only the leader would get the bonus and his vassals would be capped at a fairly low number. This would add incentive for stable Houses, while keeping the degrees by which Houses of fairly close member vary in influence fairly moderate.

And if we did do this, would we want to keep bonuses from being Chancellor or stats?

GH mentioned putting more power in the hands of the executives. The Megas in LotR is pretty powerful, and I recall the Chancellor being so as well. Would people be open to adding more power to them?

As for our King [or Doge if we play as Venice or Duke if we play Milan (although I think Doge is just Italian for Duke...)] perhaps he could distribute land as he did in KotR? If land and landed vassals is influence this would make him very strong.

I could see recruiting one or two rgbs early on, if we decide on a certain number of players we want the game to start with.

Edit: Gah! Missed a couple posts. It's sounding like people want something a little more like KotR in some ways. If people prefer some things from KotR (like the House stability) we could modify the rules in that direction.

Gah! Seems like I posted in the wrong thread. Here's my take on things which also entails some suggestions for a new game if anybody's interested:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=3083

And I approve of Zim being GM. Maybe this is the time for the disclaimer where it says that you become GM at your own risk, TinCow probaly knows best, but I can imagine it wasn't always easy to lead the frenzied mob. :2thumbsup:

A lot of good ideas here guy's but the level of complexity needs to be kept in check.

KotR was a much stronger role play experience. I think everyone agrees.

I'd base things off that and then cherry pick the 2 or 3 best things from this game and then perhaps add 2 or 3 news things...but not more.

It has to be playable.

It took a 5 way, pretty intense session of vets from KotR to rescue this game at one point, the reason, it was too complex.