Rules Discussion

Greetings players of LotD.

I wanted to open up a thread specifically dedicated to rules questions and revisions.

Bear in mind that the most up to date rules will still be in the first page of the OOC thread.


To start things off, I have been thinking about financial dynamics for the game and the limited money available to most players. I currently feel that the King has perhaps too much of a monopoly on money, and that any revolt would be suicidal because of this. The main reason for this is that the King gets 4000 free income every turn, and no one else gets any.

My idea is to
lower the King's purse to 2000 per turn
give the Junior King a base income of 500 per turn
give all other nobles a base income of 300 per turn

This would represent the personal holdings and small estates owned by the nobles.
This would make the distribution of money more even, and I think it will allow all players to have more active participation in game without constant fear of bankruptcy.
It also fits into the Golden Bull because this prevented Nobles from having to pax taxes to the King, which would mean more money for Nobles and less for the King.
It would also make it possible for a large revolt to find success against the King if they occur, rather than basically being hopeless because of the king's purse.

Overall, the faction's income would be unchanged for now, and it would also help reflect the growing importance of the Nobility as they get more numerous. (The more nobles, the more their 300 per turn shifts power in their direction.)

We certainly don't have to do this, but I wanted to check in and see what players thought of this.

I didn't realize the king's purse was being added to his income. At 4k that does seem unbalancing (sorry Myth). I'd be ok with the proposal above but maybe another option is just to remove it altogether? After all if the nobles aren't paying taxes then where is the king's purse coming from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

I didn't realize the king's purse was being added to his income. At 4k that does seem unbalancing (sorry Myth). I'd be ok with the proposal above but maybe another option is just to remove it altogether? After all if the nobles aren't paying taxes then where is the king's purse coming from?

---

That is another option, but my fear is that is would cripple the faction economically, especially compared to the huge income boosts the ai gets.

My reasoning is that these purses come from various small personal holdings and estates (and businesses, etc...), distributed throughout the Kingdom, rather than from taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

That is another option, but my fear is that is would cripple the faction economically, especially compared to the huge income boosts the ai gets.

My reasoning is that these purses come from various small personal holdings and estates (and businesses, etc...), distributed throughout the Kingdom, rather than from taxes.

---

Yeah you're right, we need the cash in some form.

Anyone who objects should try to do so before the next turn. If there are no objections, I will put this into effect starting turn 3.

I support the measure for you reasons you've outlined. It is the internal strife that makes these games memorable!

Sounds good to me.

I'm ok with this. FYI I am not viewing this game as a me vs. the rest or as "who gets to be the King". I want us as players and strategist and capable tacticians in battle mode to work together to make this otherwise quite underprivileged faction position work for us and at some point turn Hungary into a Great Power. We all know we can do it in SP, the beauty of this is team play and doing it this way, with the AI backed up by human intelligence. Hence my 4000 gp per turn doesn't mean I get to do what I want, it means we get more units to fight the other factions with. I command them sure, but If the King falls you all fall with him. If he wins, you all benefit from the security that victory provides.

If the ultimate goal for this is civil war so that someone else gets to be King I'll just quit right now and leave you guys to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

I'm ok with this. FYI I am not viewing this game as a me vs. the rest or as "who gets to be the King". I want us as players and strategist and capable tacticians in battle mode to work together to make this otherwise quite underprivileged faction position work for us and at some point turn Hungary into a Great Power. We all know we can do it in SP, the beauty of this is team play and doing it this way, with the AI backed up by human intelligence. Hence my 4000 gp per turn doesn't mean I get to do what I want, it means we get more units to fight the other factions with. I command them sure, but If the King falls you all fall with him. If he wins, you all benefit from the security that victory provides.

If the ultimate goal for this is civil war so that someone else gets to be King I'll just quit right now and leave you guys to it.

---

The point is more that civilw ar is an option if you or a future king bully everyone too much, and to distribute the factions wealth more so that everyone gets to command armies, not just the king.

Aye that certainly has to exist. Not like in KotN where all the starting armies belonged to the Basileos and he acted like God's avatar on earth even though we had a proforma voting system established for our "democracy".

The funny thing is that people went with this and scraped and grovelled before the leader of a democratic, Hellenistic society. Here, where we have a medieval King who is supposed to act like he is everyone's boss, people jump at the slightest chance of them being somehow unequal.

I don't have much experience with other TW RPG games here, so I don't know which is the norm. I am fine with giving everyone income. Hell, allow them to build "estates" represented as forts, that will generate income. No more than two estates per province, needs approval if it is to be built in someone elses's province, each estate generates 500/turn but must be garrisoned naturally. If an enemy army takes the estate, the player loses 10% of his current gold + (20%-whatever the number of estates he holds). So the more estates you have, the less you lose from each one if it is taken.

Soirited in character discussion and a degree of autonomy has been the norm with rpgs here so far, ever since the orginal Will of the Senate (played as Rome in a RTW mod). Several times, notable in Last of the Romans-ERE and seemingly KOTN, very autocratic societies have had voting added in to give players more control. When we played the Holy Roman Empire in KOTR tension between the ruler and nobles was very much a theme (as both wanted more power and at different times each had the means to gain it), something that may or may not here.

Regarding KotN, I think Ptolemaic rulers were sometimes deified so "god's avatar" would be insulting their divine majesty. ~;)

NB's proposed rule change sounds fine to me, as long as the extra funds still scale up for the King and possibly Junior King.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Aye that certainly has to exist. Not like in KotN where all the starting armies belonged to the Basileos and he acted like God's avatar on earth even though we had a proforma voting system established for our "democracy".

The funny thing is that people went with this and scraped and grovelled before the leader of a democratic, Hellenistic society. Here, where we have a medieval King who is supposed to act like he is everyone's boss, people jump at the slightest chance of them being somehow unequal.

I don't have much experience with other TW RPG games here, so I don't know which is the norm. I am fine with giving everyone income. Hell, allow them to build "estates" represented as forts, that will generate income. No more than two estates per province, needs approval if it is to be built in someone elses's province, each estate generates 500/turn but must be garrisoned naturally. If an enemy army takes the estate, the player loses 10% of his current gold + (20%-whatever the number of estates he holds). So the more estates you have, the less you lose from each one if it is taken.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

NB's proposed rule change sounds fine to me, as long as the extra funds still scale up for the King and possibly Junior King.

---

Okay, they are going into effect this turn, but what do you mean by scale up? Just that they are larger, or do you think they should become progressively more so as time goes on?


Also, since I have received some questions on a few things.

Q. If someone needs my facilities to recruit something and I ok it, can they just be queued and then that person pays for it? Or do I have to spend my own money and then get paid when I transfer the troops?
A. It can be queued and that person pays for it.

Q. Is income available to be used on the current term, ie. if I start a turn with 1000, and have an income of 2000, can I spend 3000 this turn?
A. Yes, income is available for spending on the current turn.


Also, people should send me pm's of where their treasury is stored.

7.8 Each player must declare where their money is kept, this may be either a province or with their character, this location may be changed at the end of any turn (unless it is within a besieged province)
7.9 If the province where a character keeps their money belongs to another player, that player may seize the entire sum whenever desired
7.10 If the province where a character keeps their money is captured by an enemy faction, 75% of the money is lots, while the other 25% is allocated to a new location by that character’s player
7.11 If a character who is keeping their money with them is defeated in battle, 50% of their money is lost.

I just meant that they make more money, as proposed in the op.

Scaling up the King's funds as the empire got bigger might be interesting, but also a bit of a headache...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

Okay, they are going into effect this turn, but what do you mean by scale up? Just that they are larger, or do you think they should become progressively more so as time goes on?

---

Unfortunately I had planned my recruitment and disbanding with 4000 gp/turn in mind and am now going in the negatives. Do we get loot after defeating armies?

Here is the save. I propose the 48 hour deadline exclude weekends and common holidays.

I will need a bit more time to ponder at the map before I give you an IC reply guys. NB I'll upload the finances after I have dinner, it's 10:30 here and I just got back from the gym so, food first, spreadsheets later :yes:

Yes, you get the loot when you ransom people or sack a city.

So the purse rule is going into effect the following turn, but I also have a request of you guys. Can I rely on you all to be in charge of what all belongs to whom. I can track agents and provinces, but keeping track of all the armies is a lot of work.

What this would mean is that in your beginning of turn status report from me I would no longer list what military units are under your control. If it is important to people that they continue to receive this, it would make things far easier on me if players could give an itemized list of their armies (recorded by captain or general name), and of the individual units they own inside other players settlements or armies.

Is everyone okay with switching the turn limit to 72 hours?

I have another question for everyone.

What do you guys think about getting new general units for the game?

Should we just wait for them to crop up naturally?
Are players allowed to recruit them? (if so, I would say that general is a vassal of theirs automatically)
Should I use my super GM powers to ensure that one gets made as soon as possible whenever someone is on the waiting list?

I think we should wait a few turns and if a new character hasn't cropped up, then you should use your godlike abilities to create one. We don't want people dying and immediately coming back to life, but we don't want people sitting out forever either.

And it makes sense in game too; it would take a little time for titles to be sorted out after a lord died without heirs before a new lord would rise to the position.

makes sense to me. Maybe about 5 turns?

I reckon while we're at the start and still gathering players we should capitalize on it by making generals freely available. That way we build a good core of guys and get everyone involved and hooked before they lose interest waiting and drift off. We can always restrict things later if we seem to be having a 'revolving door'

Well, I can try to get some avatar's for Cecil and Quirl (if he wants to join) at the end of this turn. (so they will start next turn) That would still have a couple turns after mikan's death, and we can go with a 5 turn waiting period in the future.

I'll pm Cecil and quirl and make sure they are ready to come in, and if so we will do the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightbringer

Is everyone okay with switching the turn limit to 72 hours?

---

I prefer the 48 hours, its too long if not. But as you said there seems to have been problems with meeting the deadline.

Im against, but open

Hey everyone. What would you all think of including a rule where you can use a spy to steal money from another faction or another character.

The way the mechanics would work is that you would have your spy infiltrate a city, then let me know in your end of turn report that he is attempting to steal from that city. I would make a calculation based on the spy's subterfuge score and let you know.

I support it, but i would also like to add some things

The spy will be able to find out it the Lords treasury is wherever he is infiltrating, should be easy enough askng around in taverns or the right people. May raise suspicion but its never cause for death, in theory^^ He should also be able to get an idea of how rich the treasury is. (useful to know regardless)

The amount of money stolen should be a percentage of the total treasury, with a minimum amount and perhaps maximum. lets say 750+20% out of total.
Large treasury its too much to carry, small treasury and he grabs the box with jewels :)

The infiltrate action should cost the agent his subterfuge action for the turn, imo he should be able to attempt to steal the same turn he infiltrates.

I dont like the idea of stealing income from cities, only lords treasuries :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithridate

I dont like the idea of stealing income from cities, only lords treasuries :)

---

What about stealing from other factions though? I like that idea

Sorry, by city I meant the cities of other factions. For character's treasuries it would be from wherever that treasury is stored. As for learning if it is in the army/city of _____ character, I would say that makes sense, but that it would take the turn's action to do so.

Quote:

---

What about stealing from other factions though? I like that idea

---

Yea it sounds nice, id love to get some models on success rate though but imagine that would be pretty hard with so many factors.Perhaps adding that when investigating location? ( the spy recons his chances to successfully steal to be x%, estimated loot would be around y )

The more you know the better since getting a man in and out, can be quite hazardous!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=LkO-2v-coho

This is what ive been doing in one hotseat, my spies bring a lot of death when they infiltrate^^

Well, how about this. i'll tell you the base rate for success would be 10*subterfuge skill %. This would then have modifiers added based on the target. In general, the larger/more advanced the governmental building in a city is (so the larger the settlement), the harder it will get. For characters, it will depend on traits and army size.