KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

I have a question regarding rule 2.3:

Quote:

---

2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

---

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

---

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

---

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

TC, your stance makes sense, but as outlined a few posts later, the banishment would only be possible against someone involved in a civil war, not against any noble out there just like that.
This is to allow the FL to take sides in who to support if there is strife within his own empire. The outlaw would have to be caught by the FL's troops or those who want to be in the FL's favor, not just by any unit, so there would be little work for the chancellor as people move their own pieces in line to whether they support the FL's banishment or not.


[edit]
To address PK's point, I think if you were to make an underage character inherit the lands, you must also name a regent, who is an avatar already controlled by a player, to take control over the lands until the heir comes of age. As TC points out, there can be power conflicts at that point (Civil War!), which is good.

Hmmm... that is interesting. I think there's definitely an improvement there somewhere. I'm not convinced that banishment as described is the best system, but I would like to hear more discussion on it and possible powers that the FL could use only during a Civil War. Options could be things that force people to pick sides or that aid one side over the other. A very interesting proposal; I will think on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

---

Yeah, that's why I made clear I would be mad IC, and not OOC. OOC, I understand it is what happened in history. I just wanted to be sure I had the rules clear. Thank you for explaining that further. :beam:

Quote:

---

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

---

I admit my personal exerience with KotR has left a bitter taste in my mouth with regards to this subject.

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

Ansehelm named an underage avatar as his heir. When that avatar came of age, Econ gave the avatar to his real-life son, Mini-Econ. Stig was visably pissed off OOC. Ansehelm then made one of Siegfried's daughters heir so the person she married would be the next Duke. I can tell you that these moves really caused a lot of frustration both IC and OOC.

Eventually Econ made a rule saying you should name a heir that is currently played by another player. If you name an heir that is under-aged, or of-age but unclaimed, then it would cause a Ducal Council to be called. So, in KotR, you can do it but it will be reviewed by your peers.

I would personally not want to see inheritance passed down to under-age/unmarried females/unclaimed avatars. But if we do, we should at least have some sort of peer-review process to make sure it is rare and not abused. In my opinion, what ever richness could be gained by allowing 5 year old Dukes is far outweighed by the potential IC and OOC trouble it could cause.

Of course, in this game, all of the vassels of Duke Nukem now have another option. While Franconians could only sit and stew over Ansehelm's move, Duke Nukem's vassels could simply leave. Which means a 5 year old Duke would have a bunch of territory but no one to run it. What would happen in that case? Do we pick a "regent" to be a caretaker? How would that work mechancally?

I like the idea of a regency over lands bequeathed by will to an underage avatar, it will allow for some interesting interactions betwen players...

I already envision the regent refusing to release his grip over the lands or doing his best to send the ruler-to-be on military duty to prove his worth (and his ability to die :laugh4:)

An heir should be an active player. This isn't exactly historical, but it prevents the power structures from becoming too rigid in the game and gives players on the bottom hope that their day might yet come. This will help in player retention.

Players on the top would also realize that they will reap what they sow, so it might make them a bit less Machiavellian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

---

That's a very good point. There are major OOC reasons for not wanting someone to be able to inherit their own lands. I'm sure we could write an elaborate rule about who can inherit and who cannot, but that would probably be long and confusing. Simplicity is probably what your original suggestion was: only living, of-age avatars that are currently assigned to another player can be made heirs. Perhaps I should make a separate rule about Wills altogether, removing the bits and pieces from the other spots that discuss them.

Here's a draft:

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. A Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. A Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

---

I like it. If a lot of people really want the ability to leave things to player-less avatars, I'll help with trying to close the loopholes. But I really really like this better. :yes:

This game is a balance of trying to simulate a historically accurate feudal system, while still being the most fun for the most people. That is why I like that the new feudal structure is strong, yet flexible. I know others have advocated for stronger ties between the noble and his vassels, but I like that the vassel can leave. Sure he might be attacked but he has the option.

I see the heir thing along the same lines. While there are many instances throughout history of kids being made the monarch, I fear it will cause for more trouble than it is worth.

If being historically accurate creates a situation where things might be less fun, then I'll vote on the side of "fun". And this is a "historian-in-training" talking. :beam:

That rule has to go in.

I'm STRONGLY against people holding a position by using that mechanism.

At the very least if someone near the top kicks the bucket then a different "real" person should get a shot at handling the reins.

It's not historical which is something I would like to see therefore the only "trick" I can see is to make sure the eldest male is allocated as a priority and all male members of the line also.

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

---

The problem I see is that it will be open to abuse. A player could just leave his future avatar land and a title. I rather see it go to a new player, even if it means by-passing the "eldest son".

In KotR, we had players pass along IC information to their new avatars. I know you did it with Ruppel. The Order did it when their players had to take new avatars. And I was going to do it with Andreas von Hamburg. To me, this is ok. If you want to plug your new avatar into well developed storylines, I think you should be able to.

But leaving your new avatar land and titles is different in my opinion. It consolidates the power in the hands of a few players instead of leaving it open. This will create resentment both IC and OOC, as we saw in KotR.

I noticed TC has left out family tree politics entirely in his rules draft. I doubt this was an accident. Instead, it is up to the players to move their characters up the ladder.

Unless we want to add in family tree politics into the rules. But maybe that is something that should be RP'd IC instead of legislated OOC. Just my thoughts...

*edit*

What you could do, if you want to leave things to the eldest son, is this. Leave things to a third party. And then when the eldest son comes of age, the third party can then give everything over. This would keep the issue strictly IC using the mechanics already available. This would of course require a third party who is willing to do it. And he could always change his mind. But such is the risk of politics...

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.
Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

---

Interesting. I would be more open to this idea if it was limited to really high ranks. I still don't entirely like it though... Like I said before, my experience with this was not a happy one. I'm leaning towards making sure all of the resources get rotated among the players. If we do your idea, it rewards a veteran player because he gets something a new player wouldn't. And while I think that veteran players are important, I'm worried it will create a "old boys" network among a small group of veteran players. Which will make for a less open and happy gaming atmosphere. I do agree your idea would be more historically accurate though. But I'm willing to sacrifice that so things can be more "fun" for everyone.

Quote:

---

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.

Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

---

Well the higher noble says who the army commander is so that is somewhat figured out already. As for not voting unless your a vassel, I am certainly open to the idea. I do worry a little bit that it might leave new players with little to do. Voting is something that helps tie players to the game and I am hesitant to mess with that. Though, it would help bind the vassel and the lord closer together which some seem to want.

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As for changes to the rank structure, I didn't make any changes at the low levels because I want to keep discussing them. I haven't seen any consensus on the matter yet, and I want this to be group decision making. Other people are free to draw up their own rule text to be discussed. That would probably be more efficient than waiting for me to figure out what is intended. I do like the multiple ranks in an army thing, though. Something along the lines of adding this text to Rule 1.3 might work:

Quote:

---

If there are multiple players involved in a battle, all of whom are capable of commanding it and wish to command it, the player who's avatar holds the highest rank will be the commander. If the avatars are of equal rank, the CHANCELLOR will select which of the players will be the commander.

---

*edit* Realized the above rule should only apply to non-Private and Royal armies, since those have commanders already chosen for them.

Above idea temporarily suspended while I try to think if there's any situation in which this would actually be necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

---

As long as the 3rd party transfer remained voluntary, I'd support this. While still open to abuse, this adds in a nice "check and balance" that has the added bonus of encouraging RP'ing and politicking. It was the direct handing down of resources from a player's 1st avatar to the player's 2nd avatar that felt icky to me. The "regent" could decide for himself whether to honor the noble's wishes. The burden would then be on the noble to treat the regent well before he died to help ensure the regent remains loyal. If the regent changes his mind after the noble dies, well then the "eldest son" would certainly have a large IC beef but all of that could be RP'd and could be exciting.
----------------------------------------------

I have two new ideas that are unrelated to matters of inheritance:

1.) What would you think of adding 1 influence to Faction Heirs? They get a +1 cap already. Chancellors get +1 influence plus +1 cap and I think FH's should get the same. The way I see it, there is influence inherent in being a "Prince" and the +1 influence would reflect that.

2.) A Grand Duke (and maybe even a Duke) would have the power once per Chancellor session to mandate that a certain guild in a certain province "must be accepted" if that guild is offered in a province the noble controls. The Grand Duke and Duke already have the power to "prioritize" buildings and this power is along those lines. This means a Grand Duke can say, "During this session, if Hamburg is offered a Merchant Guild, the Chancellor must accept it." And maybe the Faction Leader can dictate 2 "must accepts" for guilds in his settlements. That way, higher ranking nobles can direct the guild strategy in their provinces.

Guy's,

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I know this part of the game is designed like the Mafia games but it is something that I think will detract from the overall situation.

I certainly liked the genealogy and family tree's and what they all meant in KotR, and that includes the adopted general's and spawned characters. I also think these provided great continuity and I also think most of us liked it.

The coat of arms by deguerra and the general feeling of belonging, where very much like the families and the Ducal and Royal son's, brothers and sisters (maybe we might strike it lucky with a few female players...playing princesses and queens would be great) that made up the feudal societies back then.

Even in this structured situation we all know there was certainly more than enough fireworks in the previous game. Therefore I would prefer to keep that part of it. If we leave the more advanced Civil War system in place this will allow for "options" but they are really "final" solutions if things can't be worked out inside the House and the family situation.

People being Grand Duke's one minute then a Duke the next and vis versa all the way up and down the hierarchy doesn't seem appealing or even remotely accurate.

I liked the fact that the Steffen's where a major part of Bavaria and that a few extraordinary nobles attached themselves to the family and provided great service. Likewise I enjoyed Arnold's inability to not continue the line and "hand" things over to the Zirn's through his sister after following on in his fathers footsteps. I would personally like to see these "great houses" established at the beginning, with the knowledge that we are providing a strong mechanism for fragmentation should there be enough support for it.

What is going to seem unnatural is people magically losing titles and their positions due to a mechanism that insitutionalises mistrust and double dealing. There was already more than enough of that going on in the first game...the idea of having very knife edge internal house politics running seems like it will be too hardcore.

Our relationships where already disfunctional enough without advocating it further in the actual rules.

I think nothing should be left to the same players next avatar, that is just hogging power and part of the fun is earning what you have, not being born with it. However it would make sense if a Grand Duke or Duke left a single settlement to his son. If the player's next avatar is of no relation though then it is just meta gaming and should, imo, be avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

---

I don't think there will be a great deal of yo-yoing simply because I think people will tend to stick with their chosen Houses for the most part. If you get a group of people together with similar IC goals, they will tend to want to work together in the long term. However, I do understand what you are saying. It is possible that the Houses will be very unstable, despite what I imagine happening.

One possible way to counteract that without completely scrapping the feudal structure system would be to impose some kind of limit on how often people can switch sides. Perhaps a limit on how often people can swear Oaths of Fealty, but with no limit on how often they can break them. For example, you can only swear an Oath of Fealty once every 10 turns. So, if you join a House, that House is the only one you can be part of for the next 10 turns. You can leave (break Oath) before 10 turns is up, but you won't be able to join a new House until the rest of your time limit expires. So if you want to leave one House and join a second House at the same time, you would have to wait until your 10 turn cooling off period is done before breaking and re-swearing. The longer the cooling off period, the less 'yo-yoing' we are likely to see.

I like that the positions can yo-yo. It will force the upper-ranks to earn their title and not just inherit it.

Power... some people work hard for it. Some people get it as a "sweet-16 present". :laugh4:

As for how important "houses", "royalty", "lineage", "nobility", ect... are, that will be up to us to decide IC. I'm glad TC's rules don't dictate specific House structures, family tree structures, and bloodlines. We'll figure all of that out ourselves.

Maybe it was not as historic to have the nobles yo-yo up and down based on fickle vassals, but it might be a lot more fun. Quite frankly, I believe we had some "weak" Dukes in KotR. And for the most part, they were "weak" because they weren't online much, or felt that they could treat their vassals crappy because there were few consequences. Having the "oaths of fealty" become "breakable", solves a lot of those problems. Is the Duke not online much and ignores you? Just switch to another. Is your Duke sidelining you for personal reasons? Switch to another.

Now, the noble's ability to declare war on someone who breaks an oath is a powerful counter-balance. Also, TC's idea on a "cooling off" period might help too.

I like the idea of requiring land + title being given only to an avatar that already has a character. The idea of having that character possibly be a regent for the leader's underage son is also interesting, since if the regent decides to keep the land a civil war could start between loyalists and supporters of the regent. :2thumbsup:

RE: AussieGiant's concerns, I'm a little ambivalent. I really liked the relative stability of the House structure in KOTR, but also like the fluidity of the new system, where in year x the main power could reside in a single giant House, but 100 years later there might be many, roughly equal ones, as the old one fragmented. The possibility of a Civil War is supposed to make the idea of breaking fealty a weighty decision, but it will be hard to figure out what kind of difference that will make until we play the game for a while (and longer than a potential test game).

perhaps that coud be an addition to the King's banish ability. If someone breaks an oath of fealty then they could be declared an outlaw. Personally my character will despise anyone who breaks an oath.

I think the threat of civil war will deter yo-yo'ing. I doubt people are going to willingly let go their Grand Duke power so that Baronet X can go seek his fortune elsewhere. A guy at the top only has to smack one little guy down to keep the rest in line, or cause them to at least make a well developed move with a better chance of success.

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

---

That's a good point. I like the fact that you can "refuse" someone's oath. There might be some yo-yo'ing in the beginning but I predict a lot of players will want stability and will create that atmosphere. Sure, we'll get a rebel now and then like Wolfgang or Jan, but their success will be limited unless they do it at the right time and place.

I have a question about how the game will start.

Chances are on turn one, barring a few scarce faction + mod combinations, we'll have a fairly small number of players lucky enough to receive a starting FM and probably a territory. Since we're implementing recruitable generals from the start, and TinCow expects to get a large number of players into it in the beginning, we are likely to quickly end up with a lot of avatars with no land and no title.

It seems early on people will try to attach themselves to someone with a title and land, in the hopes of becoming a baronet themselves. So say players x,y, and z all swear an oath of fealty to player q. Soon enough, perhaps thanks to a friendly Chancellor willing to give q troops to use, players x,y,z have all conquered land and become baronet. This allows q to become a baron, but if q wants to raise any higher he needs another baron (if I understand correctly) to swear fealty to him. So he needs one of his baronets to swear fealty to another to raise the other vassal to the level of baron, so that q can become a viscount or whatever the next rank is. To do this that player will have to break his oath to q to swear fealty to their comrade, who is still a vassal to q. This would go on, with the now nascent House fluctuating a bit as it absorbed members outside of the 4 originals, or maybe lost a couple. Eventually something kind of stable might emerge.

If that makes any sense, my concern is basically that it seems the early game will see a lot of breaking of oaths, something I'd hope to be rather rare. I guess the alternative is a decent number of the starting knights avoiding oaths at the start, until they see where they'll fit in their new feudal chain, or maybe independent knights will be lucky enough to get resources from whoever is the first Chancellor to conquer their own territory.

I'm just wondering what the best way to absorb a lot of starting players will be... :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I have a question about how the game will start.

Chances are on turn one, barring a few scarce faction + mod combinations, we'll have a fairly small number of players lucky enough to receive a starting FM and probably a territory. Since we're implementing recruitable generals from the start, and TinCow expects to get a large number of players into it in the beginning, we are likely to quickly end up with a lot of avatars with no land and no title.

It seems early on people will try to attach themselves to someone with a title and land, in the hopes of becoming a baronet themselves. So say players x,y, and z all swear an oath of fealty to player q. Soon enough, perhaps thanks to a friendly Chancellor willing to give q troops to use, players x,y,z have all conquered land and become baronet. This allows q to become a baron, but if q wants to raise any higher he needs another baron (if I understand correctly) to swear fealty to him. So he needs one of his baronets to swear fealty to another to raise the other vassal to the level of baron, so that q can become a viscount or whatever the next rank is. To do this that player will have to break his oath to q to swear fealty to their comrade, who is still a vassal to q. This would go on, with the now nascent House fluctuating a bit as it absorbed members outside of the 4 originals, or maybe lost a couple. Eventually something kind of stable might emerge.

If that makes any sense, my concern is basically that it seems the early game will see a lot of breaking of oaths, something I'd hope to be rather rare. I guess the alternative is a decent number of the starting knights avoiding oaths at the start, until they see where they'll fit in their new feudal chain, or maybe independent knights will be lucky enough to get resources from whoever is the first Chancellor to conquer their own territory.

I'm just wondering what the best way to absorb a lot of starting players will be... :juggle2:

---

You bring up a good point. And that is that there will be a lot of "voluntary" oath breaking. To create the feudal chain, nobles will have to break and then re-make their oaths. Since TC is considering a "cooling off" period with regards to making oaths, perhaps that can be waived when both parties want the oath to be broken. That would allow the House to be flexible and grow. Also it will allow it to absorb losses of players/characters quickly and reform as needed.

I have a separate question about the beginning of the game. If you can't run for Chancellor as a knight, and oaths are frozen during "governing body" sessions, does that mean that the first Chancellor has to come from the starting baronets that Econ picks? I'm assuming we will start off with the first "governing body" session. So the first session will have a few baronets and a bunch of knights. Actually, if there are no RBG's recruited yet, will there be no knights at all? Except if there are more avatars than territories in the beginning of a game of course. Then there will be one or two knights. So, is there a "generic elector" option?

Or will the first "governing body" session only be attended by a few players while the rest of us watch and wait for our RBG's to spawn?

Knights could simply refrain from swearing an oath until they find a nobleman who is willing to give them a province or an army command. In the beginning, the only people with military power are going to be the Faction Leader, the Faction Heir, and the Chancellor. There's not going to be much pandering to the starting Baronets because those Baronets can't give you much of anything. It's more likely that people would seek to buddy up to the three people (two if the FL or FH becomes the first Chancellor) with power. And of those three people, the FL can't even have vassals. It's likely that the FL would simply end up conquering a couple provinces himself and them handing them out to Knights to create independent Baronets who are not vassals to anyone. Better for the FL to have people in his debt than in the debt of other nobles. This is doubly true if the FL is the first Chancellor, since he'll have essentially all the military power in the game.

Yeah, it may be a bit fluid and improved in the beginning, but the beginning will have relatively few battles and movements, so it will go pretty quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if the first term was only 1-2 weeks. If it helps reassure anyone, I plan on taking a recruitable general to start instead of a beginning landed avatar if it is offered to me. I have enough confidence in the system that I'm willing to start from scratch.

Just think about how crazy the HRE of old was. So many principalities... dear God.

For inheritance, I think there should be a one-province and as much retinue as you want inheritance.

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

How about changing the requirements of Baronet and above to read

Quote:

---

Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

---

Where x is the minimum number of nobles that a rank currently requres; one for a Baron, two for a Viscount and all that.

That would not make it inherently easier to keep one's vassals happy, but it would lessen the chances of a catastrophic failure the likes of which every Grand Duke under the current system would face if his Duke rebelled. Certainly there were Lords who had one or two powerful vassals that they had to listen to very carefully, but there were also Lords who had vassals that were only a threat if they banded together. Why not allow for the two extemes and everything in between? It would naturally allow for a greater diversity in the structure of the houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

How about changing the requirements of Baronet and above to read

Quote:

---

Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

---

Where x is the minimum number of nobles that a rank currently requres. One for a Baron, two for a Viscount and all that.

That would not make it inherently easier to keep one's vassals happy, but it would lessen the chances of a catastrophic failure the likes of which every Grand Duke under the current system would face if his Duke rebelled. Certainly there were Lords who had one or two powerful vassals that they had to listen to very carefully, but there were also Lords who had vassals that were only a threat if they banded together. Why not allow for the two extemes and everything in between? It would naturally allow for a greater diversity in the structure of the houses.

---

Ok, are you trying to say it doesn't matter what ranks the vassals are? Like, a Grand Duke only needs 6 vassals in your system? And they could be any rank as long as they own land? So, in your system, there could be a Grand Duke and 6 Baronets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

---

The only other hierarchy I had down was the one I mentioned earlier:

Grand Duke requires 2 Dukes.
Duke requires 1 Marquess
Marquess requires 1 Count
Count requires 1 Baron.

The ranks of Baronet and Viscount did not exist in that system. It was easier to get to Duke, but the Duke wasn't quite as powerful as the current Duke is. It was also much, much harder to get to Grand Duke, as it required a total of 9 people in one House (2 Barons, 2 Counts, 2 Marquesses, 2 Dukes, 1 Grand Duke). It was an acceptable system, but I think the current one is slightly more balanced. There's still more work to be done, though. A lot of flaws have already been pointed out, particularly regarding the Faction Leader. If someone thinks they can come up with a better balance of requirements and powers/penalties, I would very much like to see it. I did not expect my 7 rank tier to be adopted as-is.

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank. For instance, if we compared a House led by a Duke to two Houses led by Viscounts. Both require 6 people, but they would have different abilities. The Ducal House would probably triumph, though, because they would have 4 Private Armies to the Viscount Houses' 2 Private Armies. Thus, in pure military strength a Ducal House of 6 people can field as many Private Armies as two Count led Houses totaling 8 people. That doesn't even take into account all the extra abilities that the Ducal House will have that their competitors do not. Is this reasonable? Should the Ducal House of 6 have that much of an advantage over two allied Houses of 4 people each?

Thinking about stuff like this might help us work out what the proper balance should be.

Regarding the wills of vassals, I really am against them being able to bequeath their land at will. In reality, they hold their land of the lord and it's ultimately their lord's. If they die and have natural sons, they should be able to pass their land on to them. But if they don't, then the land should revert back to their lord.

Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.

Quote:

---

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank.

---

Here is what a House led by each rank would have cumulatively. From this, you can mix and match various Houses to compare strengths of various alliance possibilities. Keep in mind, this is the bare minimum each type of House will have. They could have more.

Baronet- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Baron- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Viscount- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Count- 4 people
1 Influence
7 stat Influence
2 private armies
one Edict
3 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 5 people
1 Influence
10 stat Influence
3 private armies
one Edict
5 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 6 people
1 Influence
14 stat Influence
4 private armies
one Edict
8 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

I think one possible issue doing it that way would be that we plan on bringing lots of players in early on using recuitable generals. With so many generals for the faction, it could be a long time before we see more than one or two marriages and births, at least until we expand far enough to trigger them. This would make it very difficult for early players to have an eldest son to pass their land to. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Regarding the wills of vassals, I really am against them being able to bequeath their land at will. In reality, they hold their land of the lord and it's ultimately their lord's. If they die and have natural sons, they should be able to pass their land on to them. But if they don't, then the land should revert back to their lord.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank. For instance, if we compared a House led by a Duke to two Houses led by Viscounts. Both require 6 people, but they would have different abilities. The Ducal House would probably triumph, though, because they would have 4 Private Armies to the Viscount Houses' 2 Private Armies. Thus, in pure military strength a Ducal House of 6 people can field as many Private Armies as two Count led Houses totaling 8 people. That doesn't even take into account all the extra abilities that the Ducal House will have that their competitors do not. Is this reasonable? Should the Ducal House of 6 have that much of an advantage over two allied Houses of 4 people each?

Thinking about stuff like this might help us work out what the proper balance should be.

---

By looking at the power accumulated by each "type" of House, here are my thoughts. Keep in mind, that the work I did was only on the bare minimum for each House. Technically, each kind of House can have more people of each type other than Grand Dukes.

1.) As TC pointed out, you get more power by going up the ladder. A "Duke" House has twice as much military power as 2 "Viscount" Houses.

2. This is ok with me. It makes rank mean something. If the Duke House gave as much as 2 Viscount Houses, then a lot of people would probably just get Viscount Houses and make alliances. There would be little/no reason to make a bigger house where you have to rely on more people.

3.) Also, encouraging people to form bigger groups encourages people to Roleplay more. It will take a lot of work to make 7 people happy but if you can do it, the rewards are worth it.

4.) A Grand Duke House is an awesome power. 5 armies. Only 2 nobles have to sit out without armies. That is the lowest percentage of army-less nobles than any kind of House. Unlimited edicts and CA's which all 7 nobles can benefit from. 2 nobles who can't be banned and can call emergency sessions. This ensures that all 7 people have a voice and get their opinions heard. The whole House benefits from the ability to declare war on the AI. And one Edict or CA can be vetoed at each session.

5.) I say keep this pretty much as is. Maybe tweak it here or there. But having the powers increase per rank is a good thing in my opinion.

I'll make an observation on stability of houses. A house built upon the minimum requirements, where each noble only has one province and one vassal of one rank below him is unstable. If anyone in the chain rebels, everyone above him drops down.

However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

I think people will be prone to building tree-like structures, especially if at the start, many small houses start up, which would end up getting combined at the top. Although the minimum requirements are fine as they are now, when trying to balance the number of ranks and their powers, it should be considered that people will not only build linear houses, especially if loyalty proves hard to find... and it probably will.

With trees, there are many, many different kinds of topologies possible. The successful player will probably be the one that best manages to balance stability with height of rank. The only thing that will be tricky to figure out in advance is how many vassals on average people will have. The minimum number of people for a grand duke is 7, but with any branching the number grows quickly. If everyone in a house had two vassals, to get to grand duke would require 127 players. Obviously, that won't happen, and most houses would fall between the extremes.

Further tradeoffs occur if you consider the powers gained. A more branched out house would get more armies and more influence in the votes, but a house that tries to build vertically as quickly as possible would get the special duke and grand duke powers sooner.

In any case, this makes for some very interesting strategic choices on the part of the house leader. The only issue is figuring out what will happen in advance so as to balance things properly. We want neither large numbers of unstable houses, nor a very small number of highly branched houses (and few players at the very top).

What kind of house would you build?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLYdude

What kind of house would you build?

---

Under the current rules, I'd say get 6 other people and go for a Grand Duke House as soon as possible.

Offer them the things a Grand Duke can provide.

Tell them that as Grand Duke, you can present any Edict or CA they come up with.

Tell them that you and your Duke will sit out and all 5 of the lower nobles will always have an army command.

Tell them that you and the Duke will say anything they want in the "governing body" since you two can't be banned.

Promise them all that you and the Duke will call emergency sessions if they want it.

Tell them you will declare war on the AI so they can get land.

Tell them you'll veto a piece of legislation they don't like.

Promise to prioritize their buildings.

Promise to use your voting power to pass what they want. Make sure you have the stats to use your 5 stat influence.

As Grand Duke, you will have awesome powers. Find 6 people and tell them you will use those powers for them if they will push you up the ladder.

It might not be the most stable, but if you use those Grand Duke powers for your vassals, they will keep you up there.

I'd like the Grand Duke rank to have to be approved by the Faction Leader, considering the wealth of powers a Grand Duke has. It would create political wrangling, and allow the FL some sort of control over his big vassals.

I agree on the one hand, but disagree because as I see it a Grand Duke is meant to rival the faction leader and heir.

I'm also still not completely sold on the entire rank system. Somehow, I think a few smaller regional groupings would be better than two or three massive houses. I have nothing to back this up, really, but it seems the little guys should be given a chance if they work together.

As such, I still think smaller houses are limited too much. Perhaps make Duke easier to gain, and Grand Duke harder? Or something along those lines?

Just a suggestion: Perhaps the requirement for a Baronet could be reduced to a fort? That would help smaller houses form.

The Faction Leader's permission should not be required to create a Grand Duke, as the point of such a position is to create problems for the FL.

My main worry is how large the houses will be. Flydude makes good points about how much Houses can vary in structure but the chains he describes may or may not be practical depending on the number of people. When we think of a one house we should remember that we are talking about only a fraction of the players in the game (Not to suggest that Flydude hasn't done this). That is why my suggestion makes the higher levels easier to reach, but not easier to keep. A Grand Duke may have to choose between the greater power of a straight chain and the safety net provided by simply having six Baronets.

To elaborate on large houses further, I believe geographical interests, philosophical beliefs and personalty clashes should make a Grand Duchy a time-consuming balancing act. It should not be possible to easily keep your vassals under your thumb by offering them a constant stream of favors. In fact it should be the hardest thing in the game, and if Privateerkev is right than it could be easier to stay a Grand Duke than to stay a Viscount. That would be terrible

Furthermore, I think that it would be odd if two nobles each had six vassals underneath them and seven provinces, but one was a Baron and one was a Grand Duke. That is a vast difference in power, even though they command theoretically a rather equal amount of money and manpower. I know this problem will still exist to a certain extent under my proposed revision, but it would be less extreme and more sensible. At the very least I agree that a more concentrated structure should have more power.

Ignoramus's suggestion about forts is intriguing, but leaves the question of whoose land such a fort would be built on. That makes me think of nobles owning forts (and troops) on lands other than there own, which is something I like very much as a bone of contention, a sign of submission, or one favor in exchange for another. A noble could also have troops occupying enemy chokepoints and resources! (Can you get trade income from resources with enemy soldiers on them?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

To elaborate on large houses further, I believe geographical interests, philosophical beliefs and personalty clashes should make a Grand Duchy a time-consuming balancing act. It should not be possible to easily keep your vassals under your thumb by offering them a constant stream of favors. In fact it should be the hardest thing in the game, and if Privateerkev is right than it could be easier to stay a Grand Duke than to stay a Viscount. That would be terrible

---

Both are hard in different ways. A Grand Duke has more "carrots" (and sticks) but has to spread them out among more vassals. A Viscount has less "carrots" but has less vassals to keep happy. A Grand Duke will have more difficulty communicating to each of his people where a Viscount can have a tightly knit little House. Like a father with 2 sons.

As for allowing a Grand Duke to have 6 vassals of any rank, the House would benefit more if we stuck to a ladder

A Grand Duke House in a ladder would have at least:

Quote:

---

7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

---

Where a Grand Duke House with 6 Baronets would have:

Quote:

---

7 people
6 Influence
5 stat Influence
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

---

So, as you can see, the power difference is pretty stark. It would be in the 7 players best interest to push each other up the ladder and have each noble reach the next rank. You can of course accumulate far more power with a tree, if it gets big enough, but it will mean keeping a whole lot more people happy. The ladder method to Grand Duke is the most efficient way to keep 7 people happy and powerful.

I know your way is allowing for flexibility but I think people would go for the ladder even under your system because they can get more out of it.

I'm thinking a compromise might be good.

Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

However, the trick there would be that the person under the grand duke (and successively lower ranks) would still be able to command around the lower ranks that directly swore fealty to the highest, but the lowest can always appeal to the highest if they disagree, noting that the highest will generally favor the links in between rather than the lowest.

Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

You may think that this means people who conquer a lot automatically have a lot of power. Yes, that would be correct, but also note that if you are a Count without vassals, the overall power you wield is negligible to a Count who has 4 vassals and 4 provinces. In addition, if you die, everything is lost and you can't exactly easily give it to someone to hold onto.

This method would also make ranks a lot more stable, so if a baronet drops out, not everyone automatically drops a rank, but everything is the same if you at least have the number of provinces available to keep yourself at the current level. Now, this may sound as if it would be the same, as a baronet lost means a province lost. I think we can say that if you lose a province/baronet, you don't drop a rank immediately but with a 6-10 turn delay, so you have time to conquer a new one or solve the dispute via diplomacy or war. It would also give some time to think about the future of your "house".

What do you think of the overall gist of the idea? Land instead of vassals required for the next rank.

A land requirement is interesting and we should explore it. The benefits are as FH mentions: more stability and a well-balanced system as a rank based on land is weaker than an identical rank based on vassals due to the lack of more powerful lower level vassals. The negatives are that it encourages monopolization of provinces and provinces are the building block of most 'ownership' which people seem to like.

Another option is making multiple requirements for various ranks. For example:

Quote:

---

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

---

This would encourage cooperation between separate Houses, without those Houses having to break up their own internal structure. We could even come up with multiple 'OR' statements that are increasingly elaborate:

Quote:

---

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals OR at least 1 Count, 1 Viscount, and 1 Baron as vassals.

---

I hadn't thought of the land monopoly issue to be honest. However during a diet session, you would want to have people supporting you and during the general game, you want to conquer (and that is difficult if you are doing everything on your own). In addition, if you have a lot of land and no vassals (or very few), your lands are unlikely to be well defended and people (human and AI) might want to go to war with you.

The multiple ORs was what I was thinking of when I mentioned pyramids. Basically a viscount would need 4 baronets and 2 barons to be a viscount, but then I figured 7 people just to be viscount might be too much, which is why I thought of land instead of people as that tends to be more plentiful (and we don't exactly want to have a grand duke running about before say turn 40 or 50).

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

It would be prudent to limit it that while you can give yourself a rank based on number of lands you own (if you are a primary holder and not a vassal), you cannot make your first vassal a count in this case without filling up the lower ranks first. This would limit abuse in the system too, i.e. in KOTR if you had free lands you would always want to have it filled with a count for votes unless that elector was really openly against you - now you would also have to take into consideration whether you really want to fill the who spectrum.

Adding on a rank by province ownership requirement via "OR" could definitely work. The question is how do we want to balance that? Should it be an exclusive province or vassal requirement? So, a Baronet who had two provinces would become a Baron? Three provinces would become a Viscount? What happens then if the three province Viscount gives one province to a Knight? The Viscount would get reduced to Baron due to insufficient land and vassals. This would be true for every rank in an even 1 to 1 substitution system. In order for a province-requirement rank to switch over to a vassal-requirement rank without being demoted, they would have to give away all of their provinces at the same time. Do we want that?

At the same time, I'm afraid allowing mixing and matching with a 1 to 1 substitution would be unbalanced. Take a Marquess level House of 5 people, for example. It would be easy for the Marquess to grab 2 extra provinces, when compared to the difficulty of recruiting 2 new noblemen and keeping them happy. Is it right to allow the Marquess to bump himself up to Grand Duke just by gaining 2 more provinces? I understand the provinces substitution would have the disadvantage of having fewer ranked noblemen within the House, but that could be circumvented by having the lowest level person take the provinces. You could thus have a 5 person Grand Duke House with the lowest level nobleman being a Count with 3 provinces. Since the Baron and Baronet bring comparatively little power to the House, that wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

Ok, I'm having some trouble visuallizing this so I'm going to do something that might help me, and anyone else trying to wrap their brain around this.

Here is the current system, which is TC's ladder system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Viscount
-----Baron
------Baronet

One swears to the one above him. It pushes a man up the ladder but is unstable.

Here is TC's original alternate system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron

Makes Duke easier to get but GD harder. Still unstable.

Here was Cecil's original system. It made the only requirement a number of vassals:

Quote:

---

Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

If someone else in the chain wants to move up, they either have to convince a Baronet to join them or get someone new to join.

So, either:

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or:

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet

Here is FH's idea which is a varient of Cecil's:

Quote:

---

Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron

(while trying to stick to FH's formula, the above would not be possible due to the Baron needing a Baronet.)

FD's thoughtpiece took TC's system but explored the possibilities of going for trees instead of ladders as a more stable platform:

Quote:

---

However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

---

Here are visualizations of FD's examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

These two would join and make:

Marquess
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

As you can see, trees are more stable but need more people.

Another of FH's suggestions has to do with all nobles in the chain swearing to the highest:

Quote:

---

Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

---

And with requiring land:

Quote:

---

Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

---

So, with this idea, you would need a certain amount of land to reach the next rank and everyone in your chain swears to you and you alone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Count
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

A problem I see here is what happens when the Count wants to give a piece of land to make a Baronet? Does the Count drop to Viscount? Who owns the land?

TC's reply was to make a series of OR statements in the rules. If your noble hit any of these qualifications, he got the rank:

Quote:

---

Baronet: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Baron: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.
Viscount: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.
Count: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.
Marquess: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.
Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.
Grand Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This means that a Viscount would look like:

Viscount
-Baron
--Baronet

OR

Viscount
-Baron
--Knight
--Knight

OR

Viscount
-Baronet
-Baronet

FH came up with a hybrid as a reply:

Quote:

---

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Instead of:

Marquess
-Land
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet

then either:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

Or:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Baron
--Baronet

Or some other combination of land and nobles.

Hopefully this will help people figure out what system they want.

Thanks for the discussion guy's.

From hearing all the points of view I'm feeling more comfortable about how this will work.

This system would certainly mandate that people in higher positions are active, responsive and "in the game", and I believe that will be a good thing.

So thanks for all the feedback. I'd regard my concerns as resolved at this time.

-edit-

And guy's...I think we need to stick with an either/or solution...this is looking like a legal nightmare from where I'm sitting :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Adding on a rank by province ownership requirement via "OR" could definitely work. The question is how do we want to balance that? Should it be an exclusive province or vassal requirement? So, a Baronet who had two provinces would become a Baron? Three provinces would become a Viscount? What happens then if the three province Viscount gives one province to a Knight? The Viscount would get reduced to Baron due to insufficient land and vassals. This would be true for every rank in an even 1 to 1 substitution system. In order for a province-requirement rank to switch over to a vassal-requirement rank without being demoted, they would have to give away all of their provinces at the same time. Do we want that?

At the same time, I'm afraid allowing mixing and matching with a 1 to 1 substitution would be unbalanced. Take a Marquess level House of 5 people, for example. It would be easy for the Marquess to grab 2 extra provinces, when compared to the difficulty of recruiting 2 new noblemen and keeping them happy. Is it right to allow the Marquess to bump himself up to Grand Duke just by gaining 2 more provinces? I understand the provinces substitution would have the disadvantage of having fewer ranked noblemen within the House, but that could be circumvented by having the lowest level person take the provinces. You could thus have a 5 person Grand Duke House with the lowest level nobleman being a Count with 3 provinces. Since the Baron and Baronet bring comparatively little power to the House, that wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

---

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

---

ah ha, now that's a good idea.

I am wary of tying titles to land (beyond the 1 land requirement we have already).

Like TC said, it might become easier to get land than nobles. You don't have to communicate with the province. Just keep the settlements happy and you'll have your title. I fear this would decrease role-playing.

I like that the high noble is in a precarious position. It forces him to be active and to communicate with his people. If a high noble just needed land, he could just sit on it and wait for people to come to him.

Under the current system, I think we found a pretty good balance of power/responsibility. The vassals give the noble power but the noble then has a responsibility to the vassals. If you bind the noble's power to land, you take away a lot of his responsibility to his vassals and he can just ignore them or treat them crappy.

Now as to making rank requirements a series of OR statements, I think something like that would work. Things will still work the same way but the House would have more options. Having Cecil's pure "numbers only" requirement might eliminate the middle ranks. But TC's hybrid of OR requirements might keep things balanced. It would still be in people's best interest to cooperate and push people up the ladder but they won't "have" to do it.

I'm noticing people seem to have an anxiety towards trusting people in the game. They don't want their position to be threatened by the whim of the vassal. To that I say, A.) civil war for oath breaking is a powerful deterrent that will act in the noble's favor, and B.) it will be up to the noble to apply carrots and sticks effectively in order to achieve high ranks.

Also, having a "cooling off" period between oath-breaking that is not approved by both members might help make things more stable. I would be much more in favor of this than tying titles to land. I do believe that all oath-breaking that is approved by both parties, be unlimited so the Houses can be more flexible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

---

Then who's land is it if someone swears fealty? Under your system, a Viscount would need 3 lands. Say he wants a Baronet. A Baronet needs 1 piece of land. Does the Viscount need to get a 4th? If they give the Baronet 1 of their 3? Wouldn't that drop them to Baron? If not, would the land have 2 owners? Can land have 2 owners?

Viscount
-land
-land
-land

then becomes

Viscount
-land
-land
-Baronet
--land

Your proposing that it be:

Viscount
-land
-land
-land
-Baronet
-land

OR

Viscount
-land
-land
-land <--- this land shared between two nobles
-Baronet

See where I'm confused? Who would own the land?

I'm not sure I like the idea of just owning land being able to get a character to a high title. As long as rank was tied to vassals there was a reasonable limit to the number of high ranks we'll see. If it takes 7 people in a feudal chain to make a Grand Duke, and we end up with 20 some active players at any given point, then we'll see no more than 3 Grand Dukes at any point, and probably fewer since the Grand Dukes have to keep so many people happy.

Land, on the other hand, does not have to be kept happy. As long as you can keep conquering it, you can keep raising in rank. This could result in a disturbingly high number of Grand Dukes as our faction expands (a rank that's supposed to be very rare and a rival for the Faction Leader). Suddenly the only cap on the number of Grand Dukes in the game is how many settlements our factions can capture. Since he can start wars, a Grand Duke could even conquer up to 14 settlements on his own, and pick the player he trusts most to take 7 of them to make another Grand Duke.

If we are using a land and/or vassals system, I think we should make the rank of Grand Duke much harder to obtain, so that it isn't easy for the mid level ranks to just conquer their way to becoming Grand Dukes.

Just throwing a few more ideas out on the ranks system.

How about a suspension of rank changing when the game is not in governing session? A guy could break oath with his superior anytime, the superior will keep his rank until the next session and in the mean time settle the score with him. This could probably lead to players breaking oath just before the governing session though.

A way of preventing 6 players from going up the rank ladder to fast maybe to limit how many levels of rank a avatar can gain per session? Set a limit as above where rank only changes in each session, that only a rank is gain per term and you can only swear to someone of same rank and higher?

I really like the idea of a baronet being someone with just a fort on his lord's land.

With regards to the RBG, how many could be spawn at a turn anyway? Meaning there will still be a waiting list probably until the 2nd governing session?

I've noticed conversation slow down in here so I'll re-ask a couple questions I had posted and I'll put up my analysis of House structures for easy reference.

1.) What would you think of adding 1 influence to Faction Heirs? They get a +1 cap already. Chancellors get +1 influence plus +1 cap and I think FH's should get the same. The way I see it, there is influence inherent in being a "Prince" and the +1 influence would reflect that.

2.) A Grand Duke (and maybe even a Duke) would have the power once per Chancellor session to mandate that a certain guild in a certain province "must be accepted" if that guild is offered in a province the noble controls. The Grand Duke and Duke already have the power to "prioritize" buildings and this power is along those lines. This means a Grand Duke can say, "During this session, if Hamburg is offered a Merchant Guild, the Chancellor must accept it." And maybe the Faction Leader can dictate 2 "must accepts" for guilds in his settlements. That way, higher ranking nobles can direct the guild strategy in their provinces.

Here is my analysis on the minimum power each type of House would have under the current rules:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Baronet- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Baron- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Viscount- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Count- 4 people
1 Influence
7 stat Influence
2 private armies
one Edict
3 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 5 people
1 Influence
10 stat Influence
3 private armies
one Edict
5 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 6 people
1 Influence
14 stat Influence
4 private armies
one Edict
8 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

Here is my take on ladder vs tree:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for allowing a Grand Duke to have 6 vassals of any rank, the House would benefit more if we stuck to a ladder

A Grand Duke House in a ladder would have at least:

7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA


Where a Grand Duke House with 6 Baronets would have:

7 people
6 Influence
5 stat Influence
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

So, as you can see, the power difference is pretty stark. It would be in the 7 players best interest to push each other up the ladder and have each noble reach the next rank. You can of course accumulate far more power with a tree, if it gets big enough, but it will mean keeping a whole lot more people happy. The ladder method to Grand Duke is the most efficient way to keep 7 people happy and powerful.

I know your way is allowing for flexibility but I think people would go for the ladder even under your system because they can get more out of it

Here is my attempt to visualize the different House structures we are coming up with:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ok, I'm having some trouble visuallizing this so I'm going to do something that might help me, and anyone else trying to wrap their brain around this.

Here is the current system, which is TC's ladder system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Viscount
-----Baron
------Baronet

One swears to the one above him. It pushes a man up the ladder but is unstable.

Here is TC's original alternate system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron
-Duke
--Marquess
---Count
----Baron

Makes Duke easier to get but GD harder. Still unstable.

Here was Cecil's original system. It made the only requirement a number of vassals:

Quote:

---

Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

If someone else in the chain wants to move up, they either have to convince a Baronet to join them or get someone new to join.

So, either:

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or:

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet

Here is FH's idea which is a varient of Cecil's:

Quote:

---

Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Grand Duke
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet
-Baronet

or

Grand Duke
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron
--Baronet
-Baron

(while trying to stick to FH's formula, the above would not be possible due to the Baron needing a Baronet.)

FD's thoughtpiece took TC's system but explored the possibilities of going for trees instead of ladders as a more stable platform:

Quote:

---

However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

---

Here are visualizations of FD's examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

Count
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

These two would join and make:

Marquess
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet
-Viscount
--Baron
---Baronet

As you can see, trees are more stable but need more people.

Another of FH's suggestions has to do with all nobles in the chain swearing to the highest:

Quote:

---

Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

---

And with requiring land:

Quote:

---

Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

---

So, with this idea, you would need a certain amount of land to reach the next rank and everyone in your chain swears to you and you alone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Count
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

A problem I see here is what happens when the Count wants to give a piece of land to make a Baronet? Does the Count drop to Viscount? Who owns the land?

TC's reply was to make a series of OR statements in the rules. If your noble hit any of these qualifications, he got the rank:

Quote:

---

Baronet: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Baron: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.
Viscount: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.
Count: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.
Marquess: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.
Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.
Grand Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This means that a Viscount would look like:

Viscount
-Baron
--Baronet

OR

Viscount
-Baron
--Knight
--Knight

OR

Viscount
-Baronet
-Baronet

FH came up with a hybrid as a reply:

Quote:

---

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Instead of:

Marquess
-Land
-Count
--Viscount
---Baron
----Baronet

then either:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Land

Or:

Marquess
-Land
-Land
-Land
-Baron
--Baronet

Or some other combination of land and nobles.

Hopefully this will help people figure out what system they want

And here is my question regarding tying rank to land:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Then who's land is it if someone swears fealty? Under your system, a Viscount would need 3 lands. Say he wants a Baronet. A Baronet needs 1 piece of land. Does the Viscount need to get a 4th? If they give the Baronet 1 of their 3? Wouldn't that drop them to Baron? If not, would the land have 2 owners? Can land have 2 owners?

Viscount
-land
-land
-land

then becomes

Viscount
-land
-land
-Baronet
--land

Your proposing that it be:

Viscount
-land
-land
-land
-Baronet
-land

OR

Viscount
-land
-land
-land <--- this land shared between two nobles
-Baronet

See where I'm confused? Who would own the land?

---

I find FH's idea of land and oath allowing both to get an avatar up the ladder.

As to PK's question of what happens when the say Count gives land to his vassal, I have a proposition.

It would require some tracking but should allow also for greater stability.

It would require to differentiate free-hold Lords from tenants.

Let's say our Count owns 4 settlements and gives one to a Knight to make him a Baronet. With the rule as it is, it should drop him one level and make him a Viscount but with the land remaining in the same house I see no need for him to drop.

This would allow a house to gain power from the top rather than from the base. It could be used by the ranks higher up to even recruit members from other Houses (buying a rival house Baron with a Viscount title...)

Now let's say that this same Baronet breaks his oath, then the land granted earlier returns to the Count (a sort of loan...).

This would allow for more stable relationships between Count and Baronet.

The Baronet gains the use of the province for himself but in return he must remain loyal to his Lord or lose all.

I don't know whether the Count in this example should be allowed to wrest the land from the Baronet out of oath-breaking...

This would require to track which Baronets are free-hold and which are tenants for their Lords.

I hope this makes sense...:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I find FH's idea of land and oath allowing both to get an avatar up the ladder.

As to PK's question of what happens when the say Count gives land to his vassal, I have a proposition.

It would require some tracking but should allow also for greater stability.

It would require to differentiate free-hold Lords from tenants.

Let's say our Count owns 4 settlements and gives one to a Knight to make him a Baronet. With the rule as it is, it should drop him one level and make him a Viscount but with the land remaining in the same house I see no need for him to drop.

This would allow a house to gain power from the top rather than from the base. It could be used by the ranks higher up to even recruit members from other Houses (buying a rival house Baron with a Viscount title...)

Now let's say that this same Baronet breaks his oath, then the land granted earlier returns to the Count (a sort of loan...).

This would allow for more stable relationships between Count and Baronet.

The Baronet gains the use of the province for himself but in return he must remain loyal to his Lord or lose all.

I don't know whether the Count in this example should be allowed to wrest the land from the Baronet out of oath-breaking...

This would require to track which Baronets are free-hold and which are tenants for their Lords.

I hope this makes sense...:dizzy2:

---

It definitely makes sense.

The idea of owning/renting is certainly interesting. It would provide a compromise to the flexible/rigid discussion we are having. I would personally prefer a more fluid and flexible system, but if the majority of the players wish for more stability, then this is one way to achieve it. I only caution us against making the system too rigid. Otherwise, we'll just have KotR all over again with a few new rules.

I did think of a way to implement your idea. TC's new rules already mandates a seperate thread where each of us will have a single post that we update. On that post, we are to put our army and settlement information so the Chancellor has one place to go look things up. Land owning/renting could go there. The player with the lord could just put in the post all the land he "owns" and who is "renting". This would solve the book-keeping problem you saw.

I like this rent/own idea. I think there may be a solution to our conflicting ideas by allowing the Lord to choose whether the land being given to his Vassal is being permanently given or simply loaned. A proper balance of the rules would result in loans giving the Lord more rank stability, but fewer benefits, while a transfer of ownership would decrease rank stability, but provide greater vassal powers.

I'll think on this in more detail when I have time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneCold

With regards to the RBG, how many could be spawn at a turn anyway? Meaning there will still be a waiting list probably until the 2nd governing session?

---

No matter what mod we pick, we need to slap another one on top to make RBGs recruitable in every settlement at all times (through all levels of walls/castles) for 1 florin and with a regeneration rate of 1 every turn. With just 4 starting provinces and no conquest, we should thus be able to recruit 40 RBGs before the end of the first term, way more than we'll need. RBG upkeep should probably be reduced as well so that we don't bankrupt ourselves in our efforts to give everyone an avatar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I like this rent/own idea. I think there may be a solution to our conflicting ideas by allowing the Lord to choose whether the land being given to his Vassal is being permanently given or simply loaned. A proper balance of the rules would result in loans giving the Lord more rank stability, but fewer benefits, while a transfer of ownership would decrease rank stability, but provide greater vassal powers.

---

What about making 1 "owner" = 2 "renters". That way, we don't have to keep track of which Dukes (and other ranks) have which powers. They would all have the same powers, but what is needed to get them will vary depending on whether you "give" your land away or "loan" it.

Here is an example:

Say I'm a Baronet with 5 territories. I would need 2 more people to be a Viscount under the current rules.

Under my idea, you could either "give" the land in return for fealty or "lend" the land in return for fealty. Say you could give your land to two people and become a Viscount. Or, lend 4 pieces of land to 4 people and then become a Viscount under my idea of a 1/2 give/loan ratio. (or give 1 land away and rent 2)

The only difference between a "owner" and a "renter" is that a "renter" can't leave the land in his will and loses the land if the oath is broken.

This allows for more stability because the Lord has an option to get the land back. But, this compromise rewards RP'ing by allowing lords who trust their vassals more to get the benefits easier.

Plus, we get away from tying titles to land. A noble with 5 pieces of land is still a Baronet. But that land is "his" land and he can decide whether to "give" it or "lend" it.

And we don't have to water down the powers.

Any thoughts?

I like the idea, PK...

This really makes a difference between having free-hold and tenants vassals...

One question though : in your example, what happens in the case of the Baronet's death ?

The vassals who have got title (land given) should retain their lands but what of the loaned lands ?

Could a will assign them as free-hold to the tenants ? Is it automatically made free-hold (which would lead to some IC assassination attempts on the Baronet) ?

One idea for rent vs. own could be that all ranks are treated exactly the same, but a person who has a rental land would not get a Private or Royal Army out of it. The rentee could still accumulate an army in the garrison or a nearby fort, of course. That would be easy to keep track of and easy to implement, while still providing a major penalty for use of rental over ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

One idea for rent vs. own could be that all ranks are treated exactly the same, but a person who has a rental land would not get a Private or Royal Army out of it. The rentee could still accumulate an army in the garrison or a nearby fort, of course. That would be easy to keep track of and easy to implement, while still providing a major penalty for use of rental over ownership.

---

I like that too. Seems like another good compromise.

Tristan brought up the question of what happens to land when the noble dies. Does the renter lose the land to whoever the noble leaves it to in the will? Or, does the renter automatically aqcuire the land upon the death of his lord?

*edit*

I can't see a case where a rental land would be denying someone a Royal Army. A Grand Duke or FL wouldn't be renting from someone. A Prince might but I think the Prince should keep his royal army if he is a renter. He is the Prince after all... ^_^

For inheritance purposes, the rental land would still technically belong to the Lord, so he should be able to dispose of it as he wishes in his Will. That's part of the 'stability' he would get out of it.

Regarding the Prince, perhaps he simply shouldn't be allowed to rent at all. No self-respecting heir to the throne would tolerate such a situation. Give him 1 turn after he becomes the Heir to re-arrange his affairs, then make all rental lands he possesses return to their original Lord and bar him from all future rentals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

For inheritance purposes, the rental land would still technically belong to the Lord, so he should be able to dispose of it as he wishes in his Will. That's part of the 'stability' he would get out of it.

Regarding the Prince, perhaps he simply shouldn't be allowed to rent at all. No self-respecting heir to the throne would tolerate such a situation. Give him 1 turn after he becomes the Heir to re-arrange his affairs, then make all rental lands he possesses return to their original Lord and bar him from all future rentals.

---

Both sound good to me.

Do oaths of fealty still work the same? Say a Baronet has 3 land. He gives one to the Baron and lends one to a Baronet. Does the Baronet still swear to the Baron? Or would the Viscount have to give both to the Baron so the Baron can rent one to the Baronet?

In order for this rule change to really be able to achieve the stability people want, we would have to allow for oaths to be sworn like they currently are. Restricting it to something like direct swearing only to the person who is renting you the land would vastly reduce the utility of such an arrangement. So, I say keep oaths and rentals completely separate. You can rent to anyone you want and you can swear to anyone you want, and whether the two have any relation to each other is up to the players. I'll write up some draft language later, but I also think we need to bar 'subletting' simply because it would start to make things very confusing. You can rent land to whomever you want, but that person cannot then rent it out to a third person.

I will probably implement this rule by bringing back the 'Bonded' and 'Freehold' distinction that never worked well in KOTR. In order to make it work effectively, I'll change the language of each land-owning rank to allow them to rent out property. I will then add a new rank called Bonded Noble whose requirement is renting a land and which will be held simultaneously with another rank, like the Heir and Chancellor. The Bonded Noble rank will work by overwriting a few of the powers/penalties of the nobleman's other rank. Technically everyone who wasn't Bonded would be Freehold, but since Freehold would be the natural state, I see no reason to include it as a separate rank. Thus we will have 'normal' ranks and 'Bonded' ranks. A Viscount who owns his land will still have the formal title of Viscount, but a Viscount who rents his land will have the formal title of Bonded Viscount.

The main question is... would this kind of arrangement be enough to staisfy the players who want more stability than the current system? This is definitely not as strong as some of the proposals FH and others have been putting forward, so I'd like to hear their take on it.

I am against the idea of rental land, as it moves too far away from the idea of ownership. It's also too complicated. I'd rather stick with Tincow's original idea.

I especially dislike the idea that the Prince should be denied from gaining power in a certain way. Barring him from renting means there will be times when a noble will lose power upon becoming Prince, which is rediculous.

I'm going to put up a poll about this general topic. It's clear we're not going to find a solution that makes everyone happy, so I think we need to determine where the majority opinion lies.

I think it is important that after we finish with the test game we should decide what mod and faction we're going to play as before we make any decisions about the other rules. Ideally we should be mimicing the system of government used by our chosen faction to at least some extent, and that should be reflected in the powers of the Chancellor, the Faction Leader, and the especially the fuedal rank structure.

Judging from the mod poll it looks like we'll be playing Stainless Steel 4.1. It would be nice to have that confirmed and be able to discuss a faction, though. :yes:

Another good point from Cecil....

The thing with us playing the HRE was that it was very fragmented and did fit with the way things were being played in the actual game.

Keep in mind there we far more stable and "controlled" Kingdoms back then. If we play some type of semi feudal system it might seem very out of place to the point of being unrealistic in comparison with what was happening at the time. I say this because I expect most of us to start reading about the kingdom we choose when that is finally done. The more realistic it is, the better it will be for the game and our roleplaying abilities.

As for the land question...well fuedalism was based entirely around land ownership...if you had it then you had power...if you didn't, well, then you where in a bit of trouble.

Having said that, I think it will complicate the situation dramatically if we have some type of hybrid system. We should try for a simple and "representative" type feudal system, rather than trying to simulate things too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Another good point from Cecil....

The thing with us playing the HRE was that it was very fragmented and did fit with the way things were being played in the actual game.

Keep in mind there we far more stable and "controlled" Kingdoms back then. If we play some type of semi feudal system it might seem very out of place to the point of being unrealistic in comparison with what was happening at the time. I say this because I expect most of us to start reading about the kingdom we choose when that is finally done. The more realistic it is, the better it will be for the game and our roleplaying abilities.

As for the land question...well fuedalism was based entirely around land ownership...if you had it then you had power...if you didn't, well, then you where in a bit of trouble.

Having said that, I think it will complicate the situation dramatically if we have some type of hybrid system. We should try for a simple and "representative" type feudal system, rather than trying to simulate things too much.

---

This is a more general post not directed at you in particular. But I think of this every time someone mentions wanting the game to be "realistic".

I guess my perspective is different. I don't care what feudal structure/faction combo we have. If it is not historically accurate, I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it. And that is because M2TW is not historically accurate. At all. Period. This is why I laugh when people complain in the Citadel that hornet-nest-throwers, flamethrowers, or Panzerphaunts are not "period". The entire way that the game portrays society is not "period". None of it.

It's a game. It's meant to be fun and it achieves that. It is not meant to be a historical simulator. It is meant to reduce culture to simplistic and reductionist forms so it does not distract from the point of the game, which is to zoom in on your little men killing each other. The rest is just gravy. When you start learning about history, the first thing you realize is that the real world is just the opposite. The real world is messy, complicated, and ever-changing.

I have a lot of confidence in 2 things:

1.) I have confidence that enough of us will do enough reading to create an immersive environment.

2.) That we'll have fun no matter what faction/feudal structure we play in.

As for land, sticking it in as the building block for the most basic rank is one thing. Making it where the accumulation of more of it is the "only" means of achieving the higher ranks is something else. I caution us from moving too far towards the latter.

Sure thing PK. The game is certainly not a simulator but there is a substantial amount of effort invested in giving the game the right "feel" for want of a better word.

I'm certainly not about to reference the game for any historical purposes :beam:

On a personal level I'm simply looking to for a back drop that fit's "us", as in the total mayhem and carry on we are going to get ourselves into...if we have something that can be "basically" believable then I'd prefer that.

And...I also agree with you on your two numbered points. In the end if we don't have that then it wont impact things too much.

I like the final sentence too. That sums up my feelings also.

To get in "the club" i.e. Nobility, then a piece of land would be good as a starting point...any further advancement is better suited to other concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Sure thing PK. The game is certainly not a simulator but there is a substantial amount of effort invested in giving the game the right "feel" for want of a better word.

I'm certainly not about to reference the game for any historical purposes :beam:

On a personal level I'm simply looking to for a back drop that fit's "us", as in the total mayhem and carry on we are going to get ourselves into...if we have something that can be "basically" believable then I'd prefer that.

And...I also agree with you on your two numbered points. In the end if we don't have that then it wont impact things too much.

I like the final sentence too. That sums up my feelings also.

To get in "the club" i.e. Nobility, then a piece of land would be good as a starting point...any further advancement is better suited to other concepts.

---

!@#$

Here I thought you were going to disagree with me!

I logged on all happy in anticipation of a long dragged out emotional drama fest!

You have denied me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will never forgive this! Never!

The nerve of you to agree to everything I said! :furious3:

:clown:

On a more serious note, why aren't you in the test game? I think it will be fun! :2thumbsup:

(I apologize if anyone takes offense at the thread derailment. This thread has slowed down now that we're still waiting for the voting to finish, and the test game to start, and new rules to be proposed. I'm just bored and avoiding my 25 page paper that is due tomorrow.) :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

!@#$

Here I thought you were going to disagree with me!

I logged on all happy in anticipation of a long dragged out emotional drama fest!

You have denied me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will never forgive this! Never!

The nerve of you to agree to everything I said! :furious3:

:clown:

On a more serious note, why aren't you in the test game? I think it will be fun! :2thumbsup:

(I apologize if anyone takes offense at the thread derailment. This thread has slowed down now that we're still waiting for the voting to finish, and the test game to start, and new rules to be proposed. I'm just bored and avoiding my 25 page paper that is due tomorrow.) :yes:

---

Sorry there PK...:clown:

If you want me too I can go and get Arnold's blood soaked shoulder pads and we can go into the Diet for one more round of pontificating? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Sorry there PK...:clown:

If you want me too I can go and get Arnold's blood soaked shoulder pads and we can go into the Diet for one more round of pontificating? :beam:

---

with who? Jan's ghost? :laugh4:

I'm pretty sure Alfgarda is considered a traitor to the Republic so she is out of the question. That and I couldn't get her yelling and screaming like I could with Jan. It just didn't feel right having a 60+ plump widow telling someone to go !@#$ themselves. :beam:

I actually miss von Essen. I was all ready to turn him into a long-winded legalistic strict constructionist. Loyal to Arnold of course, but very much the bane of the Diet for his law-fare. But he died so young... :sweatdrop:

Mind if I argued with you instead :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Mind if I argued with you instead :grin:

---

:beam:

yay! :balloon2:

sure, argue (or debate if you prefer) away! It would help re-rail this thread anyways. I should probably keep researching but that never stopped me. :laugh4:

I have a quick question... who is in charge of this crazy project? The head honcho? The big cheese? The taco grande?

If I had a comment I wanted to direct to the person or persons who are ultimately responsible for KOTR 2, whom would I contact?

Tincow and possibly Econ21 after he returns from his break.