The Will of the Senate - out of character thread

Ok. Some problems im seeing from a logisitcal point of view. Each player fighting his own battles will be a nightmare especially as the empire starts getting bigger and there are more generals. And theres no way to save the game right before an AI stack attacks meaning that other players definitly wont be able to run their armies as a defensive.

I think players should be able to play for more years at a time. 5 is too few. Especially considering that some generals may have to spend a significant number turns walking all the way to the front line. This wont be such a huge problem in the beginning but itd take much much more than 5 years to get from Italy to Egypt. It also doesnt give the player much time to prepare an army and then complete the conquest.

What I think might be better is to give a handful of players an area of influence. These are granted upon request by the senate and give a player full command of armies in a certain area and against a particular enemy. The grants could have other conditions as well when granted by the senate and could be revoked or changed at any time. Obviously this makes playing slower and more troublesome because each turn would have to pass through several players, each player playing through his own area of influence.

For example one player may have southern italy and Sicily while another player may have Gaul and a third be granted the Southern Balkans. A fourth player may petition and be granted Iberia.

It basically gives players more control over their own characters and more room to role play. This would remove the role of the Consul as prime military dictator but it would showcase better later Roman senate politics with alliances and betrayals etc.

Players should give a detailed report to the senate every year. This will include screenshots with arrows indicating the movement of armies, markers indicating battles (both successful and unsuccessful), cities gained and any other information the player wants to add.

Players will have full control over the cities which they conquer until a point when the senate deems that the cities are under no immediate threat and can be fully incorporated into the empire.

OK, some interesting ideas there, shifty157. :bow: Unfortunately, I don't see them working for this campaign and would rather press on with what we have. Maybe we can try out the present rules and then reflect on the experience? Other campaigns under different rules can always be tried at a later date (or simultaneously).

Anyway, detailed responses to your proposals follow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shifty157

Each player fighting his own battles will be a nightmare especially as the empire starts getting bigger and there are more generals. And theres no way to save the game right before an AI stack attacks meaning that other players definitly wont be able to run their armies as a defensive.

---

You can save a game in the pre-battle screen (just press escape and save). I do it when I am attacking. I don't believe it is ruled out when the AI attacks.

In my experience, it need not be a nightmare even in a larger game as the Consul can do most of the fighting. I do that as a matter of course in my BI Roman games (due to loyalty problems). The Consul might want to pick a "trusty sidekick" to start a second front, but then they may want to pick a player who is quick and responsive. This is the downside (and upside?) of being in the lower house - you have to be available for fight battles promptly.

I say we give it a try. If things fall apart, we'll just autoresolve (ouch!).

Quote:

---

I think players should be able to play for more years at a time. 5 is too few. Especially considering that some generals may have to spend a significant number turns walking all the way to the front line. This wont be such a huge problem in the beginning but itd take much much more than 5 years to get from Italy to Egypt. It also doesnt give the player much time to prepare an army and then complete the conquest.

---

We're playing a 4 turns per year mod, so 5 years = 20 turns. That's the norm for a PBM and believe me it is long enough (especially end game). You can always stand for a second term and even try to go on and on. It's an important point about being in the right place, but that's one reason for an ambitious Senator to lobby the Consul to make sure your avatar is not assigned to a backwater.

Quote:

---

What I think might be better is to give a handful of players an area of influence. These are granted upon request by the senate and give a player full command of armies in a certain area and against a particular enemy. The grants could have other conditions as well when granted by the senate and could be revoked or changed at any time. Obviously this makes playing slower and more troublesome because each turn would have to pass through several players, each player playing through his own area of influence.

---

In my experience with PBMs, momentum is everything. Interest lasts a few weeks and then they often fall apart. Slowing things down any more than this campaign will already do could be fatal, IMO. Swapping savegames every turn is my explanation for why Myrdaal's valiant attempts at a multiplayer campaign have disappointed him.

Quote:

---

Players should give a detailed report to the senate every year. This will include screenshots with arrows indicating the movement of armies, markers indicating battles (both successful and unsuccessful), cities gained and any other information the player wants to add.

---

Again, this may be too onerous. Writing an AAR takes time - often an evening. I want Consuls to report every 2 days. But I'd prefer to leave the level of detail up to the player. What you specify would be appropriate for the mid-term and end-term reports, though.

Quote:

---

Players will have full control over the cities which they conquer until a point when the senate deems that the cities are under no immediate threat and can be fully incorporated into the empire.

---

I'd like governors to be able to recommend taxes and construction build lists, but ultimately the Consul will decide (although if he overrules the governor, there may be trouble).


Sorry to be so negative about your proposals. :embarassed:

Would you like to confirm your involvement in this PBM?

Option Twee for me sir.

So if a senator from the lower house gets elected for consul, does it mean he plays the next reign and gets transferred into the upper house?

By the way, can we just siggify the avatar? I like my Mongol warrior right now :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

So if a senator from the lower house gets elected for consul, does it mean he plays the next reign and gets transferred into the upper house?

---

He plays the next reign, but I would like him to stay in the lower house. Ex-Consuls might be the most reliable people in terms of picking up savegames if their avatar is in a battle. Furthermore, PBMs tend to end up with a few hardcore players finishing them off (ie recycling players). Indeed, I'd like to give Consuls the chance to try for immediate re-election if they feel they have some unfinished business. The Senate can always vote for a challenger instead.

Quote:

---

By the way, can we just siggify the avatar? I like my Mongol warrior right now :tongue:

---

No problem. Juliius Caesar let in some Gauls to be Senators. We've just let in a Hun. :inquisitive:

Shush. Complain anymore, and I'll sack Rome. So there. :2thumbsup:

Just to say I've had a PM from Glaucus confirming that he would like to be in the Upper House; he may move down to the Lower House when he's installed the mod.

So, econ, now that we have the rules laid down and six confirmed members, when will we start? Should we try to get ten confirmed first?

Simon, in the IC thread, you have a Lucius Aemilius listed, but no picture/details :huh:

Pencil me in for the lower house, pending me getting RTRPE to work... :computer:

I'm in for the Lower House, but not in the running for the first Consulship (out of town for Memorial Day weekend; will be able to post, but not play).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Both - the whole Senate votes on elections, on motions etc. Every member gets one vote + one vote for each point of influence their avatar has.

---

I like the idea of adding the actual avatar's influence to the vote, but I think a direct 1 to 1 for each influence point could be heavily unbalancing. You could have two Senators out-vote 20 others! I would like to suggest the additional votes be given out at the rate of 1 for every two, preferrably three influence points. Keep in mind, the most powerful Roman Senators won votes simply by swaying the rest via debate, bribery or other means. No reason why that can't work here either. I'll tell you for a fact that I'll be far more likely to vote for someone who promises to give me one of his more valuable retainers than for someone who offers nothing. After all, I'm Roman. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

EDIT 2: ok, last thing. Could anybody please post a map of the world as it is in the mod at the top of the IC thread? It'd be handy to be able to see where cities and provinces are for the senators when making decisions...

---

I grabbed this off of the RTR gallery. It doesn't show individual cities and provinces, but I don't know where to find a map like that. It would be huge!
https://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b..._final_664.jpg

Wow, nice find, TinCow!

I've already chosen Tiberius Coruncianus right? If I'm the character and am allowed to control him, could I request a governorship of Ancona to train up my skills? (Very) High taxes for a short period of time is enough to get Coruncianus to 10 management in no time, to provide Roma with an excellent govrenor. :2thumbsup: So far, I've got him to that level in 2/2 Roman RTR campaigns. I also propose that I begin training Triarii at immediate effect in Ancona, to fill up the two Legions with Triarii.

I thought about it and I figured that SwordsMaster was right, it really would be very useful to be able to see the actual cities and provinces without going into the game. As such, I created the "Senate Library" for the posting of reference materials that would otherwise clog up the other threads or get lost. Anything of an informative nature can be posted there and I have started it off with overview maps of the areas of the world that will be most significant in the beginning of the game.

Senate Library

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I thought about it and I figured that SwordsMaster was right, it really would be very useful to be able to see the actual cities and provinces without going into the game. As such, I created the "Senate Library" for the posting of reference materials that would otherwise clog up the other threads or get lost. Anything of an informative nature can be posted there and I have started it off with overview maps of the areas of the world that will be most significant in the beginning of the game.

Senate Library

---

Cool. Good job.

I've been thinking about the whole influence thing.

Here's my conclusions:

A member of the senate with high influence can "outvote" another senator, if he has more influence. This is done, by subtracting the influence of the rival from your own, and if the result is >0, the other senator doesn't get to vote at all (this can be considered as uncovering some shameful behaviour or bias that would prevent him from inervening). Thing is, there exist the possibility of alliances, so if a senator is part of an alliance, the influence of the whole alliance is used for the calculations. This is why politics are important, a senator with a good base of allies and people who owe him favours, can dictate law.

Now: alliances would work on a "per vote" basis initially, i.e., someone can owe you a "favour" - one vote - without commiting themselves to the party.

In general, what I mean is, the only men who actually decide the outcomes are them men who have influence left untouched by the end of the voting sesion.

Example:

4 senators: voting a motion:
A: influence: 7
B: 2
C: 4
D: 8

If senators A and B are "teamed up" for the vote, they can "absorb" the vote of senator D if he votes against them, and therefore get 2 votes (A and B); but if a different vote is carried out that same session and senator C votes against the coalition, even though he has less influence than senator A, they would only have 1 influence to withstand him, and would lose both vote A and B.

Don't know if it looks too messy...

Thank you Econ21 for upgrading my status and your kind welcome :2thumbsup: Also thanks for the kind welcome by other people who might read this. You know who you are.

I'd like to apply for option (1) Lower house, candidate for Consul. Mind you, I'm new to this, so if I make a mistake in protocol I apologize in advance. Still, I find this all very interesting and will share my views on the process in a further post when I've reread all the post for the third time :)

Finally, FYI, Marcus Camillus, a God-like contributor to RTR, has also made himself available for this project. His post can be found in the RTRPE thread.

OK, looks like things are warming up here.

Mount - I'll put you down for the lower house. I think Lucius Amelius is in the in-character thread, but maybe I've put the labels in a confusing place (below the pics).

TinCow - excellent job with the Senate library. :2thumbsup: As Speaker of the House I appoint you Senate Librarian (ie miscellaneous queries for in-game information from Upper House members - e.g. from savegames - please direct to TinCow. Lower House members are expected to have already installed the mod and so can load the savegames directly). If you accept, as compensation, I will propose a motion that the first librarian ancillary (do they exist?) spawned in the game be given to your avatar. If this motion is passed, any Senator refusing to surrender said librarian risks a vote of censure or worse.

TinCow and Swordsmaster - on influence and voting. I am sorry but Swordsmaster's voting scheme hurts my brain and as I will be one collating the votes, that's not good. :shame: Influence may be unbalancing with a small Senate, but as we get more faction members and hopefully players, it might be ok. But as a compromise, let's go with:
one member = one vote + (influence points/2), rounding up.
If people can veto trading ancillaries, we might find few become very influential (except ex-Consuls).

Tiberius: avatars will be assigned on Tuesday evening. We will then open the Senate for in-character debate and organise elections promptly. I would like the first incumbent to be chosen by Friday evening, so they can start playing on the weekend. Unfortunately, priority will go to members of the Lower House but some rapid conquests should spawn enough avatars for all Senators.

Death destroyer of worlds, or DDW as you've said you would like to be called for short, welcome! ~:wave: I'll sign you up for the lower house and candidate for Consul.

Marcus Camillus has confirmed to me that he is joining the Upper House. :bow: He will only be active after early June though.

MILITARY
There are some (perhaps obvious) rules I would like to add/propose :
1. Never move the capital
2. I think 2 units of cavalry would be more appropriate for a full stack, of which only one should be equites (excluding generals).
3. Don't use any dirty AI-foolishness tricks like dragging an army around the walls of your city.
4. Using the general offensively (except if the character has the bloodthirsty trait or something like that) should be minimized. The general should be used as an 'eagle' unit for morale boosts.
For all the rest of the army/character stuff I also recommend Quintus' guide of Conduct (http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...owtopic=12035).
An intersting discussion on 'correct' Roman Legions (http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...howtopic=14498)

POLITICS AND OTHER
A) I think it is possibile to switch savegames around at first when non-consul characters become involved in battle, but I'd recommend against it, as the danger of losing momentum will be great.
B) No character should be assigned a military command unless he actively campaigns for it in the senate (I'm the man for the job !) and then the consul should be allowed to fight the battles with these non-consul characters on the battlefield instead of autoresolving them. This gives the risk of someone getting seriously upset as his character is killed in battle by the consul, but then he should not have lobbied for the military command in the first place.
C) I am against autoresolving battles with armies lead by characters as the results are wildly unpredictable.
D) I'd advise updating the playing platform RTRPE + metronaval (which includes 4TPY) at the last possible moment of this campaign start as improvements are still coming in. Just yesterday, 09:58 PM, an improvement was added which is a best-case solution for the 'phalanx bug', which I would almost say is a vital improvement. (details : http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...c=18729&st=100)
E) I would make the voting completely individual, including private deals and schemes behind the scenes, lobbying for votes and handing out and cashing in favours. So I do not favour an offical alliance system as this would lead to the situation of a few powerful spokepersons of the different factions and greatly lessen the amount of debate.

For the rest I more or less agree with the consensus that has already been reached. These are all suggestions of course and their inclusion or rejection do not effect my decision to play at all.

I agree with the change to 2 units of cavalry, only one equites, since this means more allied units and more accurate. I, as said before, would like to join the upper house, and am looking into downloading RTR when I'm done with the Selucid PBeM. I have a quick question though, say Econ and DDW are both in the lower house and have an avatar guy in-game. If Econ tells DDW he'll give him his "Tribune" ancillary in game if they vote together, then how does it get transferred? I was under the impression, and correct me if I need correcting, that the Consul is the one actually playing in-game. So would we have to tell him to change it around for us?

Thanks, Glaucus, Upper House Guy

Hiya Glaucus,
Yes, I expect the consul would be obliged to perform these actions (after getting the go-ahead from both members to prevent doubledealings).

Also, and I can't believe I missed these obvious things, I would like to suggest changing the following campaign settings :
A) VH campaigns; M battles -> VH/VH
In my experience, the AI needs all the help it can get.
B) Large unit size -> Huge
It makes for more realistic (and fun) battles IMO. Also, it bring the size a legion close to its 'real' size. You need a good computer tough.
C) Timer on -> Timer off
There is nothing more annoying then sieging a huge city. It is almost impossible to capture it in time if it is defended by 3 units.

Some interesting ideas, DDW. There's a risk of overloading players with rules, so I would like to distinguish between "inviolable rules"; "Senate rules"; and "guidelines".

"Inviolable rules" are things that are so crucial, not even a Senate vote can alter. e.g. no retraining below full strength units. Typically these are to reflect phsyical or logical constraints; or ways in which we as players should interact.

"Senate rules" are rules which could be waived by a Senate vote. Typically, these would be policy issues about in-game strategy or political issues about Senate procedures etc. In this class, I would include "never move the capital". I could imagine a situation in which the Senate might wish the capital to be moved (e.g. WRE in BI) but you are right, a Consul should not be able to do this on a whim.

"Guidelines" are rules which players are encouraged to follow, but which they can deviate from without resort to a Senate vote. For example, 2 cav per stack. Generally, it's good and I do it in my games. But again, I can imagine situations when it might be violated - e.g. if fighting horse archers or in the desert, and you need more mercs/cav; or if you have a tribune leading a cavalry raid into enemy territory etc. Going back to the Senate does not seem appropriate here. Bear in mind, with no retraining, our cavalry units are likely to get depleted very fast, so 4 depleted units might not be an unreasonable amount of horse.

So on your proposed military rules, I suggest treating (1) as a Senate rule; the others as guidelines.

On the non-military stuff:

>> A) I think it is possibile to switch savegames around at first when non-consul characters become involved in battle, but I'd recommend against it, as the danger of losing momentum will be great.

Let's try passing the savegames - they offer the most direct interaction of Senators in the game. I suspect it will be unproblematic early on; but may be an issue as the Republic grows.

>>B) No character should be assigned a military command unless he actively campaigns for it in the senate (I'm the man for the job !) and then the consul should be allowed to fight the battles with these non-consul characters on the battlefield instead of autoresolving them. This gives the risk of someone getting seriously upset as his character is killed in battle by the consul, but then he should not have lobbied for the military command in the first place.

Again, let's try the "pass the savegame" thing first. If Lower House members can't fight their own battle in 2 days, they shouldn't be upset - joining the Lower House means you have undertaken to be available to fight ad hoc battles at short notice.

On command appointments, let's not make hard and fast rules here, but I suspect jockeying for such appointments will be a key issue for Senate interactions.

>>C) I am against autoresolving battles with armies lead by characters as the results are wildly unpredictable.

Yes, "ouch" is my view of autoresolving. But let's try to avoid it by Lower House members doing their duty.

>>D) I'd advise updating the playing platform RTRPE + metronaval (which includes 4TPY) at the last possible moment of this campaign start as improvements are still coming in. Just yesterday, 09:58 PM, an improvement was added which is a best-case solution for the 'phalanx bug', which I would almost say is a vital improvement. (details : http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...c=18729&st=100)

Very important issue. Patching our games is a potential nightmare with such "work in progress" mods. (Hence my earlier inclination for RTR Gold). There's a trade-off between messing about too much, involving potential compatibility and coordination problems, and being stuck with bugs. I agree let's update on Friday. Whether we update beyond that, is a bridge we will cross when we get to it. Would you be willing to keep an eye on progress with Platinum and Metropolis, and field tech queries about them? If you are, I will appoint you Senate Fixer and see pass a vote that your avatar be rewarded with a suitable ancillary.

>>E) I would make the voting completely individual, including private deals and schemes behind the scenes, lobbying for votes and handing out and cashing in favours. So I do not favour an offical alliance system as this would lead to the situation of a few powerful spokepersons of the different factions and greatly lessen the amount of debate.

Voting will be individual, in the sense that everyone will have to post (in public) their vote. But if alliances emerge organically (e.g. a Cato-style anti-Carthage party vs a peace party), I think it would be rather fun.

EDIT: on the preferences (VH/M; large; timer on), those settings are the ones we almost always use in PBMs here, so I would like to stick with them for this campaign. Your suggested settings may scare off less experienced players (and me!).

No comment on the difficulty settings, I'll go with whatever the preference is. I always win, regardless. :D

Units size... I'll go with Huge if you want since I have a beefy computer, but in the past this has proved problematic for PBMs since the Large to huge jump represents a major performance slowdown for players. This drastically impacts playability for anyone without a top-of-the-line machine.

I agree on timer off.

As far as being 'Librarian,' that is fine with me. I'll be happy to post pertinent screenshots of the world from uploaded saves whenever they appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glaucus

I have a quick question though, say Econ and DDW are both in the lower house and have an avatar guy in-game. If Econ tells DDW he'll give him his "Tribune" ancillary in game if they vote together, then how does it get transferred? I was under the impression, and correct me if I need correcting, that the Consul is the one actually playing in-game. So would we have to tell him to change it around for us?

---

Interesting question. Yes, you have it right - they would have to ask the Consul.

It raises an interesting issue of how much control over their avatars Lower House members should have. Personally, I think there's a danger of "too many cooks...", so I think the general rule, is that they can ask the Consul to do things with their avatars but can't demand.

Thus, the members can ask the Consul to trade their ancillaries. But the Consul can decline - e.g. if he really needs those faction members to stay put to avoid riots etc. However, in the case of such requests, the player controlling the Consul should act in good faith (and in that respect not play political games - e.g. he should not turn down such requests to punish/frustrate the voting bloc created by the trade). And he will be accountable - he should explain to the frustrated Lower House members what happened. And they can always censure, impeach, not re-elect etc. the Consul if they disagree with his decisions.

[EDIT:] I'm still holding out against the Timer Off. I've had no problem taking huge cities. And the time constraint is so crucial in war, as in life. Being saved by the timer when defending is one of the things I love about TW. "Give me Blucher or give me night".

I'd prefer timer on, in case your defending a bridge and the enemy just sits on the other side forever. Thats really annoying. And I'd prefer VH/M or VH/H, VH battles is just unfair, a veritable instant rout for anyone not a pro (me). And, sorry if I seem a debby-downer, but Large is best I think, since almost everyone can do large, but not everyone can do huge. I would hate drive anyone away because of something as trivial as unit sizes.

In all fairness, I think we should simply put it a vote, which I have another question about. People in the upper house don't have avatars, correct? so does that mean we all have one vote, since we wouldn't have an influence value for our character?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glaucus

People in the upper house don't have avatars, correct? so does that mean we all have one vote, since we wouldn't have an influence value for our character?

---

Eventually, they will have avatars. As we expand, we should get 30+ faction members and I doubt we will have 30+ active participants in this PBM by that stage!

Early on, not all Upper House members will have avatars as we have only 7 family members and 10 confirmed Senators.

If you don't have an avatar, you are a "ghost" Senator with 1 vote, same as a Senator with Tiberius Coruncanius or one of the 3 under-age members.

In allocating avatars, the rule will be Lower House trumps Upper House. And within the Lower House, candidates for Consul will get priority. Seniority will be used as a tie-breaker criterion.

Keep in mind that at the game start there is one unmarried daughter and one daughter about to come of age. That's another two avatars that will be adopted in relatively quickly. I expect we should have 8-9 avatars by the end of the first consulate.

Hi everyone,

I've been lurking in this forum for a while now and figured that this campaign would be a good way to introduce me to PBeM-ing. This sounds extremely interesting and I'd like to be a part of it.

Sign me up for the Upper House (#3) please.

Ok, I finally got my RTW installation sorted out. So I am ready to confirm for myself Option 1, Lower House with possible Consulship.

I've had word from Braden confirming that he is entering the Upper House.

Right now I am only waiting confirmation from Xiahou Liao and shifty157, then I can allocate avatars and we can open the Senate floor for motions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Very important issue. Patching our games is a potential nightmare with such "work in progress" mods. (Hence my earlier inclination for RTR Gold). There's a trade-off between messing about too much, involving potential compatibility and coordination problems, and being stuck with bugs. I agree let's update on Friday. Whether we update beyond that, is a bridge we will cross when we get to it. Would you be willing to keep an eye on progress with Platinum and Metropolis, and field tech queries about them? If you are, I will appoint you Senate Fixer and see pass a vote that your avatar be rewarded with a suitable ancillary.

---

I would be honored to accept this responsibility :bow: . I will make a post thursday night with information considering how to get the best possible out of RTRPE as the situation is then. I am not a professional modder, so don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong :)

I can live with the current campaign settings. In metronaval mod there are a lot less cities with walls anyway, so the point is a bit moot. If the unit size is large there is enough time to kill them all, but if we'd played huge the timer on can be a real problem. It takes a lot of time to kill 5000 barbarians :)

I agree with the split of rules in sections. Historically, the senate almost voted to move to Capua once, so a Senate rule would be appropriate there :). I see that you already marked some rules inviolable, you work fast :)

You can put me in the Upper House. But can someone please explain the role of an Upper House Senator to me more, because all this information is making my mind boggle. Also, when does the Senate sit? Could someone tell me in AEST (Australian Eastern Standard Time.). And as a #3, I don't need to play the actual campaign or anything do I?
Also, why not use diplomats for senators in the upper house? You could still use generals for those who might chose to go into the lower house later, but it could provide actual characters for those who just want to remain in the upper house. And the Roman diplomats were nobles historically weren't they? That way, the upper house senators could lobby the consul to give them dimplomatic ancilleries in order to gain influence in the Senate for voting.

Edit: I just discovered that 6 pm UK time is 4 o'clock in the morning here in Australia :help: , so what are you going to do about people who don't live in the UK?

Welcome aboard, Ignoramus. The function of the Senate - Upper and Lower House combined - is to elect Consuls (ie players) and to pass motions commiting them to key actions.

When Senators have avatars (faction members) assigned, they will also want to lobby for favours for them and speak in character.

The main difference between the Upper and Lower House is that only the latter must have installed the game, because they will be called upon to fight battles that their avatars get into (although on the strategic map, their avatars are controlled by the Consul). If faction members from the Upper House are in battles on the map, then at the moment the combat will be autoresolved (so Upper House members may prefer their avatars to be given behind the lines duties as governors).

Also, the Consuls will be elected from candidates from the Lower House.

People are free to move between the Upper and Lower Houses, although I expect the Lower House members to try to stick it out, real life willing. If they move to the Upper House, I may have to re-assign their avatars to Lower House members without avatars.

We are not going to have real time meetings of the Senate. There will be protracted sessions for deliberations and continual voting on motions. There will be some deadlines though - for example, voting for the first Consul will begin on Wednesday am and end on Friday pm (UK time). This will also be the interval for voting on motions. In future Senate sessions we will have more time (a full 7 days, instead of 3). But right now, I'd like to assign the avatars before deliberations start on the Senate floor, so people can be in character.

I've created a separate thread for Consuls' reports. I've noticed that some write-up threads become a pain to load because of all the screenshots in them (please reduce the jpgs to 75% before posting, everyone). I would like the reports to be gloriously technicolour.

But the Senate deliberations thread will be largely text and there's no reason to clutter it up with graphics. Plus it might be nice to read the Consuls reports uninterrupted by external commentary.

This thread will remain for out of character discussions.

On the Senate library, I've been wondering about keeping the character mugshots to there. Also it might be good to keep a record of all Senate motions (laws) there, for easy reference. What do you think, TinCow? If you agree, do you want to oversee both or shall I do the mugshots and you the motions? I think we can just keep the mugshots on coming of age - the Consuls should update the Senators about new vices and virtues in their periodic reports.