Printable View
I was just rereading some of the old VI PBMs, and I think it would be an interesting idea for all those people who still play VI to start one. Obviously by now most people would be playing MTW2, however, there ought to be a fair fwe who remain loyal to the original.
Tried setting one of these up in the early Rome days, when I still had the game actually installed on my computer. However, I wasn't able to find enough support for that one, back then. I hope you do better than I did, and wish you luck !
:balloon2:
I could play. Which faction did you have in mind?
I'd be in.
As a faction, the vikings jump obviously to mind. House rules would include some about raiding and conquest. As well as (perhaps) some period of peace to let the other factions build up again.
I was thinking either Saxons or Vikings. However, we can take a vote.
I would like to do a MTW or VI PBM if it could be done
Maybe, to attract more people, one of us should post on the MTW forums since here there's few people coming to look for an VI PBeM
Just asked (pretty much) the same question in the MTW: Single Player forum...should've checked here first. The VI-campaign has never really interested me, but if we were about to play the "real" game then I'm in.
By real game, you meant early, high, late game, with the whole of europe?
I was thinking that by proposing this, we could see how many people were still interested by VI/MTW, and at the end propose another one on MTW. However I guess if more people are interested in MTW, then we could switch to it.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
Hey,
I still think we should do this,since I still Play VI :D
Afterwards I'm thinking of organising a PBM with MTW XL
but for now, I'll just watch&learn from Ignoramus
Agreed that XL would be funnier to PBM than Vanilla or VI. I've taken the liberty to work out a sort of simplified way of playing from reading the KotR...No idea proposing it 'till I know if anyone is interested though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
I am, of course. PM me if ya want.
Me, I was thinking of one of the Italian states (Genoa, Venice) to use as a sort of Republic and from there... redo KotR or WotS.
I've sent you a PM about it:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
I still want to do this, but I'm a little inactive at this forum from now on.
Nevermind, I'll check back as often as I can.
So, Warmaster Horus and I have worked out some basic ideas as for how to play. Really, it's all a simplified version of the KotR way of playing. Of course, these are just suggestions and everyone is free to come up with suggestions and alterations:
First, we have the Chancellor. A player who works as the "mod" and who does all the dirty work. The Chancellor will be the one who constructs buildings and recruit troops according to other player's suggestions (see below). The Chancellor also moves troops around. If there is a battle, the Chancellor will send the game (via e-mail, for example) to the player who's character or province is involved (see below) who then plays the battle. The game is then "returned" to the Chancellor who continues as above.
The Chancellor has some power however, and can be a provincial ruler (most likely the capital or whatever big city that is closest to the King's position, for more info see below). The Chancellor can also engineer domestic troubles if he wishes to; i.e. by spending a little extra on himself and his own province, which should likely provoke some disputes. The Chancellor can also engineer civil wars (this is done in-game) by being convinced (perhaps by bribery) by some prince or such to assassinate the King.
Then there is the King (or Doge, or whatever). The King is played by another player. The King is the one who makes all the final suggestions, but not without the influence of other players (see below). A King must be roleplayed (i.e. if the King has the vice "irritable", he will not be keen to settle with truces and such, and a king who is known for executing prisoners must continue to do so, even it earns him some nasty vices). More than just having the final word in financial matters and politics, the King is also responsible for the main army of the kingdom, and must command all larger, offensive, campaigns. Good commander or not.
When the King dies, he will be succeeded, so players who chose to play as the crown prince must consider that they will likely end up as Kings.
Then comes Princes or Heroes (as Heroes, all scripted heroes and random generals that spawn with 4+ command (unusual, but it happens) counts). Again, these must be roleplayed as above.
There is however a difference between Princes and Heroes. Princes can't be landowners, and are solely for military purposes. A Hero is more stationary, and if he is granted a provincial title by the King, he must remain in that province untill stripped of office.
Finally comes provincial rulers. These are not "seen" unless a provincial title is handed out. That is: I can play as Tuscany withouth there being an elected Duke of Tuscany, but if there is a hero who earns the title, these two will be merged into one (unless both players disagree to this of course, in which case the problem most be solved in other ways, like the Hero not earning the title in the first place). A provincial title can not be given to some random general with high acumen, only if he is a noble (i.e. a Hero, see above).
And finally a little bit about warfare: For the realism of it, we should keep our armies balanced, quite simply. A core of elite troops surrounded by lesser soldiers.
A good rule is two units of retainers (like Mounted Sergeants) per one unit of knights. This means: If a provincial ruler wishes to recruit one unit of knights in his province, he is forced to recruit twice as many retainers, as these provide the servants, squires and well...retainers for the knights. Of course, as the eras pass by, previous peak units will be conisidered as retainers (so we could use Feudal Knights as retainers in High).
Good luck with the PBM :2thumbsup:
Good point raised there. I was thinking we should try to balance the number of princes and provincial owners to be as equal as possible. As the game passes by however, we will clearly have a lot more provinces than princes. What we could do to solve this is:Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger
When a new province is conquered, we leave it open for a certain amount of time (let's say 24 hours or something) for anyone wishing to join to grab. Once that time has expired and no one has grabbed the province, the king will quite simply chose a provincial lord whos province borders to this province and give the province to him. Of course, giving it to a non-bordering provincial ruler would give an interesting feudal patchwork touch.
Also, I realised I was a bit unclear about the real power of the king. His words are final, but he is not to make a decision if 2/3 or more of the princes and provincial lords are against him.
Again, these are only suggestions so feel free to come up with improvements. And who is interested in joining in?
I think this is a great idea and would love to join in, especially if we use the excellent XL mod with its variety of factions, but I too am somewhat unclear about the mechanics. Why couldn't a provincial ruler be both a provincial ruler and a general at the same time? In other words, when the King decodes to launch a campaign (or a Crusade), shouldn't this provincial ruler be expected to join the army/Crusade/Jihad with a certain amount of troops, and if he happens to be the highest ranking general in the kingdom, shouldn't he lead the army himself? In other words, I am not quite clear of the difference between heroes and provincial owners.
Back to gunslinger's question, I am wondering if getting new players may be a good idea actually. If the PBM starts and somebody misses out, why not create a waiting list of peope who want to join and get them in once a province is conquered or a new hero is born (such as Nur al Din for the Fatimids for example). Also I guess heroes will die from time to time, and I wonder if in such a case the player whose hero just died should be given a choice of a new one from a list of remaining generals. This brings up the question whether the green generals command should be used for a better sense of realism.
And a final question - when a battle is e-mailed to a player, then how do we make sure the player plays it only once, in other words that he or she does not replay the battle until a favorable outcome?
Since there aren't that many heros, and princes can't hold titles, wouldn't we be forced to hand out titles to "common" generals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Well, you don't need to hand out titles at all really...Like I said, for the realism of it, we should only give titles to nobles (aka heroes).Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger
To get the feel of a truly feudal system, all provincial rulers should muster a number of units for each campaign, yes. However there need to be no "effective" provincial ruler i.e. the title can remain idle untill someone suitable to take the tile appears. We should of course strive to have heroes with plenty of command stars in each province (or just good generals), but untill that is possible the titles will "stay put".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul
If a hero is indeed the best general in the kingdom he could of course lead an offensive army himself, but only unless the king has a few cowardly vices or for some reason can't command the army himself.
To put it straight:
Hero: A scripted hero or any general with 4+ starts.
Provincial ruler: No one really (except a player of course) untill a suitable hero/general appears.
So the system of these two being split will only really be used early on, as things change and we get more heroes and generals who can take the roles as provincial rulers or...er...I'm confusing myself right now. Like I said, if you know a better (and smoother) way of running this, please post it.
We could also do it like this: Let's say we play as England, and I play as Normandie. I could then (quite naturally) claim Tancred de Normandie as soon as he spawns. And later on in the campaign, when we've conquered a bit and a new player is granted with, let's say, Navarre, this player could have first dibs on any hero/general that becomes available if there is no spare general already as the player enters. Creating a joining list sounds like a good idea too.
I don't really know about green generals. It would indeed be more realistic, but might cause a lot of trouble if only high-command boys can be provincial rulers. So if use green generals we'll have to come up with another system for this.
Of course we can't control how many times a player plays through a battle, we'll just have to trust them. Although we could set up the following time limits:
The player must confirm that he/she has recieved the savegame within 24 hours after it being e-mailed.
If the player makes no report on the battle within 24 hours after the confirmation, it will be auto-calculated. The player's character will be held with the same responsibilty for the outcome of the battle as if he had played it for himself. If the player does not answer to the e-mail containing the savegame in the first place, the battle will also be auto-calculated.
Innocentius, thanks for the answers. I personally like the rules you propiosed, just needed some clarification. I really like the idea and appreciate all your efforts, and I just want to help with figuring out exactly how it will all work.
Here is what I propose, along the lines of the already suggested rules - the King should be the one who determines who gets what province and initial troops. He should do that on the basis of whom he likes, and he would probably like people that follow his suggestions more than people who have a tendency to express strong differences in opinion. I think the King should interfere only rarely in determining what is built and trained in the separate provinces, and leave that mostly to the Duke he has chosen, to give the game a sense of realism and make it harder. I also think the Chancellor will need to keep calculations for each hero's income (if that hero has a province as a fief) - in other words let's say I start the game as a unit of peasants and get Tuscany as my fief, plus an allocation of the kingdom's coffers. Just for the purpose of this example, let's say my puny acumen skills make Tuscany yield only 200 florints per turn (keeping taxes high, also my decision). My unit's upkeep is 25, therefore my annual income would be 175 florints. If we agree on a King's share of one fifth, then I am left with 140 florints. If I built a watchtower the first turn, I would have a total of 540 florints in my coffers, with which to build buildings and eventually train troops in my province. I can always ask the King to transfer troops to my province (in which case I would be expected to take their expenses or split them with the King, whatever we agree), or ask for a gift fromt he royal coffers if it is decided that a Cathedral is needed in Tuscany (would be a valid request if we play GA mode). I just think such rules would make it tougher and slower to develop empires and blaze through the entire map in a few turns.
I wonder how do we limit the King's interference in one's inner matters. I think the King should probably have a say when it comes to offensive military matters - he calls the invasions and the Crusades, because otherwise, if we go back to my example with Tuscany, I may decide that I dislike my King and as a result launch an invasion on Rome, getting him excommunicated. At the same time, I think that for the King to interfere with what I build in Tuscany and make me build a border fort instead of that farm improvement I actually want, he needs to have the suppor of the other heroes, let's say 2 thirds of it.
There should also be a specified military obligation - I would be granted Tuscany in exchange for promising to supply two units of Urban Militian and a unit of Mounted Sergeants to the King whenever he deems it necessary for a campaign he intends or for the defense of another province. These troops or whatever is left of them are to be returned to me though, once the campaign ends or the threat disappears, unless of course I am given a newly conquered province and decide to keep them there (and this new province will of course come with a new obligation). One the troops are returned, I will still have the obligation to supply them for future campaigns, and therefore I should be responsible for retraining them as quickly as reasonably possible.
Finally, here is a potentially complicated situation. If a civil war breaks out for some reason, as unlikely as this is, who decides whether the rebels or the loyalists should be supported, and, what happens in case my hero falls with the rebels? This is a difficult situation to figure out.
This was a lengthy post and I appologize if I have gone into too much detail. I guess I am just excited about the PBM.
Very good post, Kavhan Isbul! I agree with you about the pace of the game, it should be rather slow and full of political discussion and arguing that prevents us from becoming a blitz-machine like it's possible to do.
The civil war question is a troublesome one, but my simple answer to that is that we should have an out of character vote on who to support, and then we shall have to come up with a story for what happened and why that guy went rebel while that guy remained loyal.
Oh, I was also thinking: we must put up some sort of time-schedules as we can't possibly spend a few pages on discussing what to build each separate years. We should really put up ten-year plans or such, so that each separate year turns into a 5 pages long debate.
Oh, I agree, but it would depend on number of battles needed to be fought. I guess we should organize it like this - one day should be spent in the forum - not arguing, but rather submitting players schedules (build this on turn 1, build this and train that on turn 2) various proposals to be voted on (if needed, as there should be certain things the King should have the absolute power to decide, such as for example who gets what province and which troops). By the end of the day everyone votes, and the chancellor can do the playing the following day. If there are battles, he quick saves the game and sends it to whoever needs to play it (most probably the King), and after the save game is submitted to the King, he has 24 hours to send back a save file after it is finished to the Chancellor. In the meantime the rest of the players can still propose things and vote on them, plus submit their schedules. Later in the game when there are more battles and provinces switch hands back and forth, the pace may need to slow down, but I guess the whole point is not to complete the PBM in a week, but rather over several months.
Now for the Chancellor - he will need to do all the hard, tedious work and he should get a province to keep him entertained (plus the Chancellor title once his palace is built of course). How about giving him the first conquered province (and adding to that as the kingdom expands)? He should also get one vote on all matters that require voting.
And finally, in order to create some inner competition and make the whole thing even harder (and more fun), I wonder if we should divide the starting players in 4 or so rivaling factions within the faction. The King and his royal family excluded (the King's goal is to win the game, kind of boring but still tougher than any regular campaign), we can have different houses of nobles, and at the end of the game we distribute points for battles won, provinces owned, total income, best general, etc.? There can be multiple players per each faction, as long as there are enough roles for everyone. And if a civil war breaks out, depending on the popular vote on who should be supported, one of the rivaling factions can perhaps elect a new King among their ranks, with the old King simply continuing the game as a regular player (we can later decide on the rules governing which faction is allowed to appoint their King). It might make the PBM complicated, but I just think that some purpose other than a final lesser/GA/total victory is needed in order to make this really fun - otherwise all players and the King will act in absolute harmony, and there will be little difference than a normal campaign.
I agree on pretty much all you wrote Kavhan Isbul, and I really haven't got much to add except this:
I have been thinking and I think we should reduce the requirements for a provincial ruler. As the goal is to have one provincial ruler for each of the starting provinces (1 being the Chancellor) and later on perhaps a few more, it would take too long if we waited for all regular heroes or 4-star generals. Really, I think any 1-star general would do, as we should strive to give each player a certain character. Once this character die, he will be "succeeded" by his "son" (i.e. whatever name the general that comes next is called, this way we can't use the green generals though as every player's individual effort would worth nothing as their character dies).
The splitting of factions within the factions is a nice idea, exactly what noble families and what personal goals they will have be will be determined by which faction we end up with. I think we should discuss that matter next by the way, so we can get started sometime.
Here are some suggestions on what the King should have supreme rights in deciding (all issues not mentioned here would be issues to be voted on):
1. Marriage of members of the royal house
2. Military campaigns (Crusades included)
3. Handing out of provincial titles (really determined by OOC-discussions and joining lists)
4. Troop recruitment*
5. Alliances and such
* That is, if the King wishes province A to produce Spearmen, the provincial ruler of A has to construct a Spearmaker if there is none. The construction of all buildings not required for military recruitment demanded by the king will be decided by the ruler of A though.
I agree with all the absolute powers of the King except for troop recruitement. I think the only way the King can interfere with this is to grant a player a provincial title against a certain requirement, which will have to do with the province granted. For example, if Tuscany is granted, its owner should be expected to have ready for the King two units of Urban Militia and perhaps a unit of some other auxiliary troops (it is a rich province). If Scotland is granted, than let's say two units of Highland Clansmen. The size of the requirement should be based on the income of the province - you cannot expect the Amir of Sinai to be able to produce and keep 3 units of Mameluk Horse Archers for example. To keep it realistic (and difficult), the King would only be able to gather a small army of specified units from his kingdom to join with his troops - he will have a complete liberty to produce whatever he wants in his capital province in addition to his unit of RKs. I guess the province troop requirements will have to be revised every once in a while to reflect technical progress.
If an urgent need for more troops arises, such as a Crusade, the King should be able to issue a special decree, requesting the troops he deems needed. If the King allocates the amount of florints necessary for training the troops, and then pays for their upkeep (not a big problem in the case of a Crusade), then this order should be followed or the King will have the right to strip the player's hero from his titles. If the King decides that it is up to the player to cover all training and upkeep expenses of the desired troops, then in order to be able to enforce it, such a decree would be put to vote and needs to be supported by two thirds of the voters.
Now I was thinking that a player may have multiple heroes, so that he can own multiple provinces. This will also allow the green generals command to be used. In reality, great commanders such as Nur al Din did not live for centuries so that they could later face the Mongols and finally conquer the Scandinavian Peninsula. It is true that it will be disappointing to lose a great general, but it would be nice to be able to get rid of that hero that just developped unhinged loon, secret perversion and gluttony in a realistic manner. Every player that gets a province will have the ability to eventually produce troops, and all these troops will be potential heroes, so if he starts with a 1 star, 3 acumen unit of urban militia, and later obtains a 3 star, 5 acumen feudal knights unit, then he would be able to transfer the provincial title to the better administrator and commander. This way an important thing is insured - players will be motivated to build troops as they would be looking to get a better hero, while otherwise they will only want their hero to marry a princess and to fight as many battles as possible (as this is pretty much the only way to develop them). Also, if an entire unit is lost during a battle (or a commander lost to an inquistor), players will not be out of the game, as they will have other heroes to resort to.
Finally, I agree it is probably a good diea to settle on a faction, so that we can agree on some rules, as what applies to the Danes may not necessarily apply to the Turks. I suggest we use the XL mod, simply because it offers the greatest variety of factions and troops and a GA campaign. I suggest we use a faction that has 3 or 4 starting provinces, so that a few of these can be distributed to players at the very start of the game. If we start with a one province faction, then there would not even be enough heroes. I took a look at what MTW PBMs have been done (although what we plan is quite different), and the following factions have never been done - the Italians and the Turks. I suggest we use the Genoese, because they have four starting provinces, allow for a slow paced game and have all the extras such as Crusades, the Pope and certain GA goals. The Venetians and the Turks have more interesting GA goals, but the Venetians start with only two provinces if I am not mistaken, and the Turks, once they conquer all of the Middle East from Constantinople to Egypt and establish a three province border become a bit too easy. So I personally prefer Genoa as it also fits nicely with the concept of players' voting on certain issues, but I would be happy with any faction that is not a generic, boring one such as France, HRE or England.
I was also thinking of Genoa. So, based on the discussion in this thread and in a few PM's, this is as how I understand the rules:
The Chancellor: A player who works as the "mod" and who does all the dirty work. The Chancellor will be the one who constructs buildings and recruit troops according to other player's suggestions (see below). The Chancellor also moves troops around. If there is a battle, the Chancellor will send the game (via e-mail, for example) to the player who's character or province is involved (see below) who then plays the battle. The game is then "returned" to the Chancellor who continues as above.
The Chancellor has some power however, and can be a provincial ruler (most likely the capital or whatever big city that is closest to the King's position, for more info see below). The Chancellor is however, different from other Provincial Rulers (refered to as PR's from here on), is ruled directly by the Consul and does not have as much power over his own lands as other RP's.
The Chancellor can also engineer domestic troubles if he wishes to; i.e. by spending a little extra on himself and his own province, which should likely provoke some disputes. The Chancellor can also engineer civil wars (this is done in-game) by being convinced (perhaps by bribery) by some prince or such to assassinate the King.
The Consul: Then there is the Consul. The Consul is played by another player. The Consul is the one who makes all the final suggestions, but not without the influence of other players (see below). A Consul must be roleplayed (i.e. if the Consul has the vice "irritable", he will not be keen to settle with truces and such, and a Consul who is known for executing prisoners must continue to do so, even it earns him some nasty vices). More than just having the final word in financial matters and politics, the Consul is also responsible for the main army of the kingdom, and must command all larger, offensive, campaigns. Good commander or not. These are the things that the Consul has supreme command of:
1. Marriage of members of the royal house
2. Military campaigns (Crusades included)
3. Handing out of provincial titles (really determined by OOC-discussions and joining lists)
4. Alliances and such
He also has the right to demand a certain amount (and what kind) of units in return for granting provincial titles. In all other matters than the ones mentioned above, votes will be held. The word of the Consul is the weightiest, but if 2/3 or more if the Princes and PR's vote against him he will lose.
When the Consul dies, he will be succeeded, so players who chose to play as the crown prince must consider that they will likely end up as Consuls.
Princes: Princes must be roleplayed just like the Consul, but are mainly for military purposes. A player chosing to play as a prince must take in regard that he will get to fight a lot.
Provincial Rulers: A PR is a player who is in command of a province. As we start, there will be no effective rulers of many provinces (i.e. the titles remain idle), but as soon as a scripted hero or general with at least one star appear he can be given the title from the Consul. That doesn't mean you have to wait to play as a RP, you'll just have no true avatar untill a suitable one appears.
If you are new to the PBM and have only recently been given a newly conquered province, you'll have "first dibs" on whatever sutiable general that will appear. There will also be a joining que for the players. As we will play with green generals, a PR is always encouraged to recruit new troops in the hunt for a suitable successor to the current titleholder.
As an RP you are responsible to the Consul, and must be able to muster the requested amount of troops in the time of need. Also, all provinces have their own economy. First of all, your expenses can't surpass your income, but you must also take in regard that 1/10 of your profit goes straight to the Consul. What remains after of your profit after taxation is free for you to use on whatever you wish.
Finally, PR's will also be divided into four main duchys: Genoa, Tuscany, Sardinia and Corsica. Each with their own personal goals and objectives. The Genoans would probably be more friendly with the Consul while the more independent Corsicans would be more unruly. Plotting between these duchies would be encouraged.
Military: Quite simply, the armies must be kept balanced. Both for the realism of it and to make the game in general more interesting. A core of elite troops surrounded by lesser soldiers will be the model.
For each unit of knights that is trained, two units of retainers have to be trained. As we will be playing as a faction that can use Gothic Knights the retainers will appear as follows:
Early: Knights = Feudal Knights, Retainers = Mounted Sergeants or other light cavalry
High: Knights = Chivalric Knights, Retainers = Feudal Knights
Late: Knights = Gothic Knights, Retainers = Feudal Knights (CK's will fall into a class of their own as 'medium' cavalry)
That's all I can think of right now. With a few modifications these could be used as the final rules.
One more thing, these are the amount of threads that I believe this would require:
Story Thread: Quite self-explaining. Not actually necessary, but adds some flavour and is good for developing characters. This thread could also be used for correspondance between characters (only adressed characters can "read" the letters, so this would also make this the thread for plotting).
Diet/Parliament: Solely for political discussions.
OOC: Again, quite self-explaining.
Battle Report Thread: As above...
And then finally a thread were we gather all the info on our empire and some kind of timeline.
I agree with everything, 100%. Just a few suggestions, and then I think we can proceed with enlisting players. Since I guess most players would be MTW veterans, and we all tend to use similar self-imposed rules, for the purpose of enhancing the realism of the PBM, I propose the following self-imposed rules.
1. Homelands - I personally have a little problem with Genoese Sailors and Italian Infantry produced in Volga Bulgaria or Ireland. It just feels wrong. So I suggest that we use a list of homelands, where we can build our core troops, and have only region-specific troops built in the other provinces, where possible - for example Jinettes in Spain and Steppe Cavalry in the Steppes. I propose the following homelands: Genoa, Tuscany, Corsica, Sardinia, Savoy, Venice, Milan, Rome, the Papal States, Sicily, Malta, Naples, Tyrolia, and the three islands in the Eastern Mediterranean - from Crete to Cyprus. I also think knightly troops should be allowed for production in the Holy land, in the four provinces that are originally Crusades targets - units such as Feudal Knights and Feudal Men at Arms, but no militia, archers, etc. of course, there Turcopoles should be allowed under the region specific troops rule. I wonder if the Chancellor should mod the game to make Hospitallers, Hospitaller Foot Knights and Order Foot Soldiers trainable with certain building requirements, so that we can build them in the Holy Land.
2. Infantry heavy armies - just expanding on the military rules. The Genoese as Italians should use infantry heavy armies, with plenty of militiamen and spearmen. I think that heavy cavalry should not be allowed at all in early, apart from royal and princely retinues and the Hospitallers that spawn with a Crusade. Heavy cavalry should be allowed only in the Holy land if a crusade is successful, see my previous point, until the High Period. Throughout the entire game the following ratio should be applied - 8 infantry units for each cavalry unit. This ratio should only be applied to the troops produced in the Homelands, regional troops should be excluded. As far as cavalry is concerned, I like the retainers rule.
3. Specific rather than generic troops - let's try to field an army truly Genoese in its character. We can do this by training specific troops instead of generic ones. For example, vanilla archers would not be allowed, and instead Genoese Sailors would need to be trained. Once Italian Infantry becomes available (I think we need to wait until High), then no Chivalric and Feudal Sergeants, and no spearmen. I do not have any problem with militia, haberdiers and mounted sergeants (as long as the cavalry:infantry ratio is observed), but considering that Genoa was a city state, I do not think we should use Feudal troops at all, such as Feudal men at Arms, Knights (especially) and perhaps even Feudal Sergeants. Crossbowmen and arbalesters should be absolutely OK though, and I think Chivalric Men at Arms should be allowed. Later on Pikemen and handgunners should be allowed.
4. Limited mercenaries - this one is tough, but generally, I do not think we should be storming in Naples on turn 3 with an army of Kwarizmian Cavalry and Armenian Infantry. We should probably make a list of allowed mercenaries, such as Bulgarian Brigands, Alans, Longbowmen, Vikings, Turcoman Horse, Almughavars, and all troop types available to our faction. Also, I think in order to recruit mercenaries from far away lands, we would need a ship line to the provinces they come from - for example a ship in the Black Sea for Bulgarian Brigands and Alans. It sounds extremely complicated, but I want to make sure that we do not just make a fortune from trade and then gather a motley army of unbelievable mercs (Camels, Norman Knights, Billmen and some Cuman Heavies) and throw it at our enemies. But mercenaries should be allowed, within the above limits. Please feel free to add any other troop types which were wide spread in Europe as mercenaries.
5. No farming for rebels, no suicidal missions for weak heirs and undesired heroes, no Grand Inquisitors, no attacks on one Catholic faction just to have a free pass for the rest, only one Crusade at a time and a next one built only after the previous is concluded, no spamming of spies, no preparation for the Mongols, no building and raising of farms in Corsica just for the purpose of acquiring builder and steward virtues, generally no cheesy exploits and tactics. Tactical exploits however would have to be allowed, because we cannot make up for a poor AI and besides, we cannot really control what players do in a battle, even if they replay it several times in order to get a favorable outcome.
This is it, all these suggestions do not change the rules of the PBM, just add some more difficulty and realism. We should probably post a recruiting topic in the Main Hall to see who would be interested in participating.