Printable View
Welcome BananaBob.
I should point out, however, that Gold Lands to Conquer also requires the Kingdoms expansion, as it adds many of the Kingdoms additions to the vanilla M2TW campaign.
Overall, I don't want to be the arrogant smartarse, but I really do think Kingdoms has quite a bit to offer in terms of making any M2Tw campaign better, and I must restate that I am all for using it.
Kingdoms definately adds a lot of things for mods, and the most recent versions of most mods require it. I am a bit worried about using it given Tincow's desire to get a lot of people in the new game. Also, Im' not sure it would be a KOTR game without FactionHeir. :yes:
Did the first game, the WOTS, use a mod based on RTW vanilla or BI?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
TC, great job on the the rules...
One observation though : about rule 1.4, won't the 24 Hour window be too short if we gather 30+ players to allow everyone to claim the save, play its turn and upload it ?
I personally think rule 4.4 should allow bigger contingent of mercenaries wihtout being ahistorical... Think of France and the Routiers in the 13th century which the French King so expediently sent to Spain, although led by some "French" nobles almost all the men were soldiers of fortune...
Ok, here are my answers to a lot of questions. Possible changes will follow later.
It was not my intention to use this to beef up the AI like we did in KOTR. I was mainly thinking of using it for 'quests' where people are rewarded for doing something (or perhaps penalized for not doing something). For instance: First nobleman to build a Cathedral gets the ability to spontaneously generate Priest retinue whenever he wants. Or... An wealthy trade ship has been wrecked off the coast of XXXX. The first avatar to reach the wreck gets to buy 3 units of their choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Giving a FH a Royal Army from the start will make him a powerful figure. This means he will likely be towards the top of the feudal ladder, which makes sense. It will also make inheritance of the throne work better as well. I'll draw up changes that gives the FH a Royal Army, but also prevent him from getting a Private Army on top of that. If he got both, he'd be more powerful than the FL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I'll try and change the text to be more clear. Essentially, I just wanted to make it clear that a nobleman's Private Army isn't impacted by any other armies that are owned by anyone else. I should probably chop off the end and leave it as "Owns on ____ Army." Short and sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I am open to suggestions on a different rank requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
That's covered under Rule 2.2. econ21 gets to do whatever he wants. That was what we did with KOTR, and if I remember correctly he assigned them to the people who had been the most active in WOTS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
I left Guilds out because I thought that should be handled IC. To make this really simple, I could change this power: "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control." to "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in any settlement under their control at any time." That way if a guild gets built that you don't like (or anything else) you can trash it and wait for the proper one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
There aren't any, so I'm going with mob rule. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
Exactly. It's up to your Lord to make it worthwhile. This is one of the reasons why I don't see many people achieving the rank of GD. Keeping vassals happy will be hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
You keep everything under your control, assuming someone doesn't declare war on you and take them away. (See Rule 5.2 and commentary)Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
This is an interesting idea. I definitely felt like the 'Penalties' ended too early. How does everyone else feel about these suggested changes to Knights?Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
The Upper/Lower division didn't work very well in WOTS. It increases complexity and doesn't bring much to the table. Your 3a suggestions do the exact opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Makes sense, I will stick a "cannot cancel' rule in under the Limitation of Powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
That's up to the people creating them. My intention was mostly 'quest' type things with rewards.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
That's something that should be decided IC. Under the rules, they can vote however they want. Whether they want to follow their Lord or not is up to IC considerations in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
They aren't. I suggest that people simply do their best to RP any adoptions that occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Currently they aren't. See my response to PK above for a suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Technically it doesn't. Rule 2.7 takes precedence over all other rules, which applies to the seconding. I predict that we'll be fiddling with 2.7 a lot over the course of the game, so I intentionally avoiding referencing rank powers in other rules. That way, when we want to change a rank, we only need to change that portion of Rule 2.7, instead of several parts of the Rules. We just need to remember that Rule 2.7 overrides all other rules if there is a conflict between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Do avatars start with a free command point?Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I'm edging towards removing the army composition altogether. Maybe we should vote on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Tough question. I don't know how to make a rule for that. Hopefully people will behave honorably OOC.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Under 1.4, the Chancellor can go beyond 24 hours if he wants to and at the start of the game we won't have too many moves to make. I think the best thing to do with this is start with the rule as it stands, and then pass an Amendment later in the game that bumps it up to 48 hours (or whatever is required).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
See my above response to FH. I'll probably post a poll on abolishing the historical army rule altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
We just have to be careful on getting to technical following the feudal system. The voting is an important part of the game participation. Even though we will have recruitable generals if I was not an elector and had voting rights in KotR. I it would have been a long wait for an avatar and possible no involvement in the game.Quote:
Posted by FH
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.
As a knight you will not be battling all the time.
Perhaps have it so that a Knight must be under an oath of fealty in order to have a vote? That way there's a little more incentive for the bottom rank to swear fealty as well, and higher ranks can trade giving a Knight a vote for him voting along certain lines.
Say a knight favors CA 1.4 and needs to get a vote while a Duke expects to need one more vote for CA 1.7, he'll take that knight into his service for a minimum of the duration of the GB session so that the knight then gets a vote, and the Duke scores his extra vote. It would increase the political flexibility of the lowest tier of the system while also punishing them for not having a province, but making it possible for them to participate if they so desire.
:egypt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I like that change. Prince should have a Royal Army.Quote:
The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Giving a FH a Royal Army from the start will make him a powerful figure. This means he will likely be towards the top of the feudal ladder, which makes sense. It will also make inheritance of the throne work better as well. I'll draw up changes that gives the FH a Royal Army, but also prevent him from getting a Private Army on top of that. If he got both, he'd be more powerful than the FL.
I like it. But, would you consider giving a Grand Duke the power to dictate what guild goes in his area? If there are going to be few of them, I don't mind them having more powers.Quote:
I left Guilds out because I thought that should be handled IC. To make this really simple, I could change this power: "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control." to "Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in any settlement under their control at any time." That way if a guild gets built that you don't like (or anything else) you can trash it and wait for the proper one.
I love this rule... Of course, it could have had to do with who was Jan's Duke... ^_^Quote:
Exactly. It's up to your Lord to make it worthwhile. This is one of the reasons why I don't see many people achieving the rank of GD. Keeping vassals happy will be hard.
What about allowing the Knight to vote but only if he swears fealty? This would provide an incentive to get people to become vassels.Quote:
This is an interesting idea. I definitely felt like the 'Penalties' ended too early. How does everyone else feel about these suggested changes to Knights?
*edit* I just noticed that Ramses just suggested this. ^_^
Good idea. Good catch FH!Quote:
Makes sense, I will stick a "cannot cancel' rule in under the Limitation of Powers.
Good. It should be an IC matter how people vote.Quote:
That's something that should be decided IC. Under the rules, they can vote however they want. Whether they want to follow their Lord or not is up to IC considerations in my mind.
Since we'll be spamming RBG's from the beginning, there should be few, if any adoptions to worry about.Quote:
They aren't. I suggest that people simply do their best to RP any adoptions that occur.
Very good. With the old KotR Charter, it got annoying having to read the whole thing to find every instance of something that you wanted to amend. Hence, the unbelievably tedious "chicken count" argument. :laugh4:Quote:
Technically it doesn't. Rule 2.7 takes precedence over all other rules, which applies to the seconding. I predict that we'll be fiddling with 2.7 a lot over the course of the game, so I intentionally avoiding referencing rank powers in other rules. That way, when we want to change a rank, we only need to change that portion of Rule 2.7, instead of several parts of the Rules. We just need to remember that Rule 2.7 overrides all other rules if there is a conflict between them.
Occasionally if they have the right trait they do. But 5 loyalty and 3 piety is the default.Quote:
Do avatars start with a free command point?
Sure, why not. Seems like more trouble than it's worth. If we're going for more of a "internal political struggle" focus, who cares what kinds of armies the people are fighting the AI with.Quote:
I'm edging towards removing the army composition altogether. Maybe we should vote on that.
I'm still worried about the traffic jam this will cause. Maybe ask people to just download the save and ask the Chancellor to make the move for them. Otherwise, you'll have 20+ people trying to download/upload the save within 24 hours. o_OQuote:
Under 1.4, the Chancellor can go beyond 24 hours if he wants to and at the start of the game we won't have too many moves to make. I think the best thing to do with this is start with the rule as it stands, and then pass an Amendment later in the game that bumps it up to 48 hours (or whatever is required).
Now that is thinking there has to be something there for the Knight and that would be the type of influence that could work both ways and utilizing the oath of fealty.
Hmmm it could make sense with vassal knights having a vote, but why not just give them a settlement and make them baronet with it? I guess you could "gamble" and hope they vote your way... it certainly is an interesting proposition.
Army composition: Some limitations are good, just not too stringent as they are currently. If we play a Western faction, I do think we should have a knight limit (only those units that are actually knights) to reflect their rarity in those times.
Avatars do not start with a free command point, but most avatars start with either 1 point in GoodCommander or NaturalMilitarySkill at adoption/birth/generation.
If vassals do not vote as their lord commands, could this be then construed as an offense, as in breaking fealty? It would make sense IMO, or else there isn't much reason behind fealty.
I guess that is for when a higher rank does not have counties to give. He can only give his patronage and protection. (and armies). The Knight gets a vote. Seems like a fair trade. Obviously, the knight can get land later when there is some.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I'm mixed. On one hand, it limits voting freedom, on the other hand, the vassel could just break off and join another lord. Do you guys think this is a good balance? I'm not sure.Quote:
If vassals do not vote as their lord commands, could this be then construed as an offense, as in breaking fealty? It would make sense IMO, or else there isn't much reason behind fealty.
One other thing I am wondering about is whether lords can take away their vassal's holdings. Historically, that would be possible, especially for lower nobility, and it would add some flair if used when there is a good reason (and possibly without provoking a civil war)
Say you don't vote with your lord, he can take your lands after the session but you cannot declare civil war as a result immediately or so.
Ok, here are my proposed changes based on what has been said so far:
Ship Control:
New power to be added:
In addition, the Chancellor's Limitation on Powers #4 will be modified to read (change is the addition of "controlled fleet"):Quote:
(x) 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.
The wording on this isn't fabulous, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Essentially, you can 'seize' any boats that are empty or carrying units controlled by your House when they start the turn in a port controlled by your House. You keep them while they remain in port, and while they are transporting your noblemen. As soon as the nobleman disembarks, the Chancellor can grab them back. So if you want them to be around for the 'return trip' you had better leave a nobleman on board to 'guard' them.Quote:
(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.
The reason I'm sticking in the 'on board nobleman' requirement for retaining possession is that there needs to be some way for the Chancellor to easily keep track of which ships belong to who. I can't think of any other way that makes it completely obvious. Regular military units can get confused and belong to anyone, but there's no way to mix up who controls an avatar. I'm open to better suggestions, though.
Also, at what rank should this power be given? Duke and Grand Duke only?
Baronet Inactivity Penalty:
New Penalty for Baronets:
One missed vote is too few. Even I missed a vote in KOTR.Quote:
(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.
Faction Heir Royal Army
Modified Power and New Power for FACTION HEIR:
Owns one ____ army rephraseQuote:
(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.
(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.
The words "above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals." will be deleted from all army ownership Powers.
Destroy Buildings Power
The following power:
will be modified to read as follows for every rank:Quote:
Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
Canceling ConstructionQuote:
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.
New Chancellor's Limitation on Powers:
Quote:
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.
I would like to see more discussion on the following things before I make any rule changes about them:
Changes to Knights and Lower Ranks
Rule 1.4 Time Limit
Agent Power
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I like it. Gives a vassel something else to do. Maybe in return for better duties and rank later on. I think Duke or Grand Duke is good rank for this power.Quote:
Ship Control:
New power to be added:
In addition, the Chancellor's Limitation on Powers #4 will be modified to read (change is the addition of "controlled fleet"):
The wording on this isn't fabulous, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Essentially, you can 'seize' any boats that are empty or carrying units controlled by your House when they start the turn in a port controlled by your House. You keep them while they remain in port, and while they are transporting your noblemen. As soon as the nobleman disembarks, the Chancellor can grab them back. So if you want them to be around for the 'return trip' you had better leave a nobleman on board to 'guard' them.
The reason I'm sticking in the 'on board nobleman' requirement for retaining possession is that there needs to be some way for the Chancellor to easily keep track of which ships belong to who. I can't think of any other way that makes it completely obvious. Regular military units can get confused and belong to anyone, but there's no way to mix up who controls an avatar. I'm open to better suggestions, though.
Also, at what rank should this power be given? Duke and Grand Duke only?
Knights: I've weighed in on voting. As for provinces being stripped of lower ranks, want to re-instate the bonded/freecount system? It would add incentive to be on the family tree.Quote:
I would like to see more discussion on the following things before I make any rule changes about them:
Changes to Knights and Lower Ranks
Rule 1.4 Time Limit
Agent Power
Time limit: I've already weighed in.
Agents: I think at a certain rank, the noble should get a Spy and/or Assassin to use against the AI. Control of Priests make sense at a high rank too. I remember the trouble Bavaria had with a witch. Duke Gerhard should have had the ability to order priests in Bavaria to go after the witch. This would balance out the Chancellor's ability to punish a noble by letting heretics/witches wander freely. As for what rank specifically, that is open to debate. Maybe mid-level and up for priests. And Grand Duke for Spies/Assassins. When your at the level where you can declare war on the AI, it makes sense to be able to start placing spies in their cities and sabotage/assassinate them.
I have a seperate question on forts/watchtowers. How do we implement it? If I am the Baronet, and TC is the Chancellor, who builds the fort? Do I get prior permission to spend the money from the Chancellor, play the save within the 24 hours, move my avatar to the spot I want, and then build the fort/watchtower? Or do I ask TC if he can build it, then he plays the save, moves my avatar, and then builds the fort/watchtower?
I think we should keep it simple and leave it in the hands of the Chancellor. If you want a fort or watchtower, you've got to his permission to spend the florins. Once you've got a fort in your province, you'll probably want to keep it garrisoned so that it doesn't disappear, since there's no guarantee you'll be able to rebuild it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I see forts mainly being used as 'frontier' resupply points for friendly Private/Royal Armies. They are placed close to the border and staffed with regiments so that the Private/Royal Army doesn't have to march all the way to the city to get them. If people can assemble a long chain of forts that are 1 turn's movement apart, they could transport regiments a long distance without the need for an avatar and without risking the Chancellor's whims. This might be useful to distribute regiments from a castle to the city provinces of a House.
What about giving the Faction Leader all of the settlement powers a Grand Duke has?
If we let a Grand Duke sieze a ship in a coastal province the Grand Duke owns, it makes sense to me to let the Faction Leader sieze a ship in a coastal province that the Faction Leader owns. That is just one example.
I think maybe limit owned agents to 1 per owned settlement that has a guild that relates to a certain agent. It won't be easy to get them.
Time limit of 24h is fine for offense. Extendable to say 36 depending on how many battles there are possibly. If people want to fight a battle offensively but outside the 24h limit (i.e. they don't have time to do it) then it will be put off until the next turn.
Personally I think the Faction Leader is powerful enough already. Better to leave him reliant on the higher ranks for some abilities. The more he has to trust and work with the other high ranks, the larger the role they'll play in the game.
I like the rule changes. I especially like the idea of some poor nobleman in the game chafing at being 'left with the ships,' of which there are countless historical examples. It also means that coordination at a higher level is required for naval invasions that aren't supported by the Chancellor (Ones that expect to return anyway), which is realistic.
:egypt:
The leader's power should depend on whether we are aiming for a feudalistic or a democratic game.
In a feudal structure, they need support from the higher nobles, but through sheer force of being the leader have quite some powers that should be unique and/or powerful to make that role more useful than in KOTR.
I think the FL rules are just right as they are... They reflect what really happened at the period...
Strong monarchs with powerful backing from their Dukes could hold the reins of the country pretty easily while weak monarchs could have whole dukedoms secessioning (?)
Take the French King holdings which at some point consisted of only Paris and its area...
Oh, I just had an idea for an example:
The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands indefinitely. If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next session to end the outlaw status.
While outlawed, the character has to stay outside the confines of the empire or face imprisonment/execution if caught. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. If insufficient men are sent, those may be lost. If enough are sent and quickly, they may just intercept the outlaw.
As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.
The FactionLeader of course won't endear himself to the nobility by doing so, so there generally should be some reason behind it. It will also require a minimum of 6 (or 5?) authority to pull off.
What do you think of this idea?
The way I see it, the FL will still have less military power than a strong Grand Duke. Which is fine. But I think the FL should have the same powers and control over his territories that a Grand Duke has. It might only be one "county" but I'm pretty sure his word there would be law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
What's cool, is that it would have to be more of a negotiation. If the noble gets tired of baby-sitting the fleet, he can just leave the lord. Instead of it being a punishment, it would be part of a negotiation. Like, "I'll watch the ships now if I get that army command so I can conquer a county for myself later"Quote:
I like the rule changes. I especially like the idea of some poor nobleman in the game chafing at being 'left with the ships,' of which there are countless historical examples. It also means that coordination at a higher level is required for naval invasions that aren't supported by the Chancellor (Ones that expect to return anyway), which is realistic.
One input. This is regarding the attributes and retinues gain using spies and assassins. Since it is allowed to used console to move or remove retinues, maybe in this PBM any traits, retinues gain by the FL, through the action of the Chancellor will be transferred to the Chancellor? Or is that already stated somewhere and I missed reading it?
On one hand, I do see a certain poetic justice with making sure the Chancellor gets the retinue/traits. On the other, it is a way to get authority which the FL will want.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
It's certainly interesting. I'm a little worried that it will be over-powered. And could make the game unfun if abused. Maybe some checks on it. I don't know what.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
I think it could be rather fun to be an exile, but I'd hate to see a situation where it was inflicted on someone who didn't enjoy it. Maybe it's better suited to a special circumstances OOC agreement beforehand. The two players see the disagreement coming, and the non-FL player agrees to accept exile before the in game dramatics happen, thus ensuring that the power isn't abused and everyone is having fun with it.
:egypt:
I think it would be a god feature, but agree with Ramses that it should not be forced upon those that would strongly dislike it.
And Ramses, I have to ask, why do you always put the Egyptian smiley in your posts?
If it's going to require an OOC agreement then we probably don't need to have the power in the rules. If it happened it would just be something worked out OOC and IC between the players as part of a story. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
Because I'm a friendly guy with a sometimes sharp turn of a phrase EF, and I don't want anyone to take any of my posts too seriously. Plus, he looks cool, and I have one of the most famous Egyptian Pharohs for my tag.
Although I admit it probably defeats the purpose if he's in every single post. People just look past it like it's a sig, which is the exact opposite of the effect I desire.
Call it force of habit. Or compulsion. You pick.
:egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt: :egypt:
okay, I guess it could be a bit like why I always used the :clown: in the OOC threads.
I like the :egypt:. It's so Ramses. lol
Hi Guy's,
I'm struggling to keep up with reading everything at the moment. I've run out of a lot of steam...so keep that in mind with my comments.
As a player that was running a House that was tiny for about 4/5 of KotR, it seems as if this would be impossible to achieve given the way the ranking structure is set in the rules.
That seems a little limiting. To me it's kind of like simply majority voting...with this system I think we will get two maybe three big houses...
I'd like to have something like proportional representation, where it is possible for smaller groups to exist and have a good chance of making a difference.
What do you think guys?
Likewise because of th ranking mechanics I get the impression that participation (PK mentioned this before) is going to be 9/10ths of major parts of the power structure.
This goes back to little old Austria, fighting away there with a massive border with just three nobles. I don't want to be reliant on the entire structure of the coalition I'm in based solely around if people are able to participate enough. Plus keeping track of the current "status" of a coalition seems like it will be a little intensive to me.
Thoughts? Am I off base on these points?