OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

As someone who has never played MP either (Though I tried to arrange a battle for a hotseat once!) you guys have my sympathies. MTWII MP is, at best, unpolished. The battle still looked like fun though, and as an old computer gamer all I can say is that the fortunes of war often include lag. Hopefully we will have more of these, even if they're akward, because even under these circumstances at least you aren't relying on a third party to implement your orders.

I won't analyze the battle as I've never fought anything but the AI, and the AI would've been crushed by either of you guys in that fight.

:egypt:

Ok, I'll go through a few of the basic problems we encountered. TinCow, the chevron thing was honestly not a major time waster, we quickly agreed on how to work it out and if that was the only problem we had encountered I would have said that things went smoothly.

First off, playing through gamespy was impossible for us. When either of us hosted the game, the other got "NAT negotiation failed" preventing us to connect. So then I got YLC to download Hamachi (its a software program that creates a virtual LAN over the internet.) and we met up in the LAN lobby. The first try went pretty well, considering, and I actually won the battle. I'll admit to my noobish mistake here, we had to restart since I had taken the wrong General unit (I took the late era one.) For the next two hours or so, we had a series of problem getting a game started. YLC got disconnected a couple of times before I could actually start the game. A few other time he got the message "No response from Host" and there were also at least two times when he got disconnected during the battle itself. We also realized after the first battle that it was impossible to retreat in MP. We decided to houserule that any units getting to the red line was to be considered having retreated.

I want to have a chat with whoever coded the MP part of the game... :wall:

You guys don't think anything having to do with the mod itself caused your problems then?

It seemed pretty much only connection issues, so I don't think the mod had any impact on our problems.

That is the first time I have watched a replay, that was neat. It would seem to be a nice way to resolve a PvP. Though I have never done any MP. It is unfortunate the technical issue had to interfere with the process.
Overall nice job by YLC and TheFlax the story is not over yet!

I have read TC's pm about the rules in place and I will pick up the save to advance the turn in a couple hours I just have somethings to finish up before getting into the game.

This is a shameless plug, but I'm starting a game to test some new ideas for WOTS-style PBEMs here. I only have room for to start with 2-4 other people, so act fast! :eyebrows:

I did the replay a couple times and made a few notes.

This was the basic formation with which The Flax started his advance

GB(23) Slav(90) Slav(90) Slav(90)

---------------------------------------PrSpear(112) PRSpear(112

---------Mace(90) Mace(90)


--------------Crossbow(90)

--------------------------------------------------FeudalKnight(60)
______________________________________________________________

I agree with CecilXIX that I would have kept the cavalry together for more impact. A strategic reserve can save the day and the lack of one can have the opposite effect.

What I also would note here is that the crossbows were a non-factor throughout the battle. They are primarily a direct fire weapon, not indirect like archers. I would have had them at the very front, ready to run back behind a spear wall in the event of a cavalry charge

The battle was essentially decided early at time index 1770 when the militia cavalry slammed into the two left most Slav Levies. Together those formations lost 110 men at the cost of a single militia cavalry. The left most SL formation was almost instantaneously rendered ineffective for the rest of the battle with only 11 men surviving the charge.

The casualty percentage at that point was 15/2 and that 13% gap, although fluctuating throughout, meant the difference by the time The Flax's tired troops finally enered the melee stage and eventually broke from exhaustion.

Another point I noted that at time index 2614, there were 50 feudal knights sweeping forward with a gradual move left. By time index 4300, they were down to 18 knights with little real contact. The reason was that after they advanced forward and chased off their quary, they faced themselves rearward and for considerable time showed their backs to the enemy. The skythions made their opponents dearly for that as a large number of feudal knights were hit in the hind quarters.

At time index 4557, YLC sends his bodyguard after a Slav Levy with 24 men. Shortly thereafter the melee begins and it's a matter of fresh troops vs a tired and depleted set from the uphill climb. With no reserves to counter, the repeated charges including YLCs cav militia break the spirit of The Flax's troops and the routing begins.

So, from of all this a couple things. Using the ALT key and right clicking will keep all your grouped formations in order. It seems that in an MP setting this can be very helpful where you won't get separated.

If you are worried about arrows, consider going to loose formation.

Crossbows front where possible. At time index 1647, YLCs Cav did a rather casual march across the front of The Flax's lines, and those crossbows could have had a field day, much as the skythions did with the feudal knights.

Definitely entertaining overall. I'd be curious to know one thing. The Flax is in Montreal from what I understand. Is YLC half a world away or on the same continent?

New York :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightnDay

So, from of all this a couple things. Using the ALT key and right clicking will keep all your grouped formations in order. It seems that in an MP setting this can be very helpful where you won't get separated.

If you are worried about arrows, consider going to loose formation.

Crossbows front where possible. At time index 1647, YLCs Cav did a rather casual march across the front of The Flax's lines, and those crossbows could have had a field day, much as the skythions did with the feudal knights.

---

The things you learn! :clown:

Honestly, I'm a bit clueless about many aspects of this game, thanks for the advice.

Also, on an unrelated note. I had a mercenary captain?

Did the patch for LotR eliminate some of the supply traits? I just noticed a lack of "your army has x turns worth of food left" traits that were common at the start of LotR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightnDay

Crossbows front where possible. At time index 1647, YLCs Cav did a rather casual march across the front of The Flax's lines, and those crossbows could have had a field day, much as the skythions did with the feudal knights.

---

So keep the crossbows in front, and stop the whole army for them to fire? I suppose that could be advisable in certain situations, using archers offensively isn't my strong suit. I suppose ideally you'd keep the crossbowmen to the side so they could stand still and be able to hit targets of opportunity without blocking the advance of the rest of the army.

Actually, that's how some armies used them, with some form of Cavalry support right next to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Did the patch for LotR eliminate some of the supply traits? I just noticed a lack of "your army has x turns worth of food left" traits that were common at the start of LotR.

---

If it did, I didn't do it intentionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

So keep the crossbows in front, and stop the whole army for them to fire?

---

Why not? Fighting an uphill battle you want to preserve stamina as mush as possible.

A better (or more annoying, cowardly but ultimately successful) strategy would have been to wait well out of bow-shot. And wait. And wait. And wait. The AI would patiently wait for you to offer them something, but a human player would snap and do something rash like send their ranged units down to hill to pepper you with arrows.

For sure we can easily find exceptions under the right conditions. If the opposition has 6 catapults lobbing flaming missiles at me, then no, I wouldn't likely stop my army to fire crossbows. And YLC brings up a good point that positioning them on the flank makes it a bit easier for them to keep firing.

The casualties at the end of the battle clearly showed how poorly the crossbows fared. They hit few targets and at the end themselves were hit by cav and it was pretty much endgame by then.

I wonder if there's something wrong with my install. Is anyone else not getting those traits? I still get the "troops weary" type ones just not the "starving" ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

If it did, I didn't do it intentionally.

---

Could someone quickly upload a screenshot of the treasury screen for this turn or any other turn for that matter ?

If I'm attacking the AI uphill I will often put my archers or crossbowmen right at the front and use them as a sink for enemy arrows or to take and trap a cavalry charge. Let them shoot once, to draw the AI's fire, then just march them into the hail of return fire. Better them getting it than some infantry that will be useful in the fight at the top.

If you're going to be charged by cavalry order the crossbowmen to run towards the charge to prevent it getting into your good troops, and run spearmen into the melee as soon as the charge is done. If you're attacking your foot archers and crossbowmen need to be in extremely superior numbers or they're just meat waiting to die, so try to find 'em a useful way to die.

The other thing I want to say is that, except for certain really extreme terrain types, I don't find preserving stamina works very well against the AI (I've got zilch experience against humans). It's better to get into the fight as soon as possible and start manipulating the other morale factors because the stamina progression appears linear. Which is to say, it always takes X amount of time to get up the hill and always expends X amount of stamina. You can't pause long enough in the middle of an attack under fire to recover any stamina of consequence, so you're better off pressing on.

I've fought battles against the stupid passive AI where I scaled that mountain west of Damascus and let my troops sit until the battle was almost over trying to recover stamina. At best, after half an hour or so, they might recover one degree of stamina. No player is going to give you that kind of time, and even if they did that extra bit of stamina won't affect the battle a tenth as much as the other morale factors you can control.

:egypt:

Having checked this through the proper channels, I wanted to bring to your attention the following Rule Change.

This is a first draft and will be subject to your comments...

So fire away...:yes:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an Empire grows, retaining control grows ever more difficult. Resort to local governors becomes a prerequisite but this comes at a cost. Cut-off from central power, these men soon begin to look higher than their station. While some are daunted by the risks of rebelling against the central power of the Basileus, others are spurred by the challenge and look only to free themselves from the oppressive yoke of the Empire. This leads to …


SECESSION:

An avatar that fulfills the following requirements will be able to secede from the Empire and create its own kingdom.
(For the purpose of this rule, he will be called the secessionist avatar.)

1.1 Requirements: (red brackets are creator’s notes)

1.1.1/Must have personal ownership of three contiguous provinces, one of which must be a castle province or be turned into one as soon as possible.(The point being to create a sense of unity and provide elite military for the defense of the kingdom. Islands may be considered contiguous to the nearest landmass Rhodes-Smyrna, Heraklion-Corinth, Cyprus-Antioche).
Should the secessionist avatar be owner of a non-contiguous province at the moment of declaration, he will lose ownership and the province will pass to his liege (or to the Basileus if no liege lord exists).
Non-contiguous provinces conquered after the secession will be deemed added to the kingdom, though tenuously.
1.1.2/Must have had access to at least 5000 florins through conquest (occupy, sack or exterminate) personally or by way of a vassal in the turn of the declaration. (This is to enable the starting of an independent economy from the Empire.)


1.2 Secession and Civil War:

A declaration of secession is considered as a declaration of civil war with the secessionist avatar as the declarer and all loyalist avatars as the targets.
Due to the turmoil created by such a political upheaval, a full turn of non-aggression on both sides will take effect, thus making an exception to Rule # 5.1.
During this turn, any loyalist avatar can declare neutrality in the secession war.

1.3 Lords and Vassals:

A declaration of secession automatically breaks any Oath of Fealty the declarer had to a higher Lord.
It does not break the oaths of his lower vassals, though they may choose to break their oaths at this point. This Breach of Oath of Fealty will not be considered as a declaration of war as per Rule #5.2.

All vassals choosing to keep their Oath of Fealty to the secessionist avatar will be considered part of the secession and part of the Civil War.


1.4 Treasury:

1.4.1/The secessionist faction will start with the sum derived from point #2 above (ie 5000 or more florins) which will serve as his starting treasury. Being an independent kingdom until brought back into the fold, all expenses will be paid from said treasury.
1.4.2/A separate thread will be created by Tincow for the duration of the secession which will be used to list the turn by turn revenue/expenses of the secessionist kingdom. (This to provide an easily accessible balance sheet for use by the Megas).
In this thread, the secessionist player will write a balance sheet for his kingdom each turn whose amount will be subtracted from the Empire treasury.

Example of balance sheet (to be added)

The principle being that every expenses on the Secession balance sheet should be added in the income of the Empire and any incomes from the secession should be substracted from the same column.

1.5 Bankruptcy:

If the secessionist kingdom treasury goes in the red, a state of bankruptcy will be declared.

Consequences of the bankruptcy are as follows:

a/ no recruitment and no building of any sort will be allowed for the duration of the bankruptcy.
b/ If at the end of three turns, the secessionist kingdom treasury has not gone back in the black, the secession will be considered over and the secessionist avatar will be considered to have surrendered.

Funds can be provided by reducing upkeep, destroying buildings or conquering. Ransoms acquired against AI opponents by the secessionist avatar (or his vassals) will be added to the secessionist kingdom treasury. Ransom can also be sought from the Empire for the release of any avatar/units captured through a PvP battle.

1.6 Failure of the secession:

1.6.1/The secession will be considered to have failed if:

a/ the leader of the secession is captured or killed in battle by the loyalists. Any other cause of death will simply bring the succession to the “heir” (ie, the player next avatar or the in-game heir or elected avatar among his vassals in order of preference).
b/ Bankruptcy (on the terms described above)

1.6.2/Whatever the cause of the failure of the secession (except the death in battle of the avatar), the secessionist avatar will be considered to have surrendered to the ruling Basileus. All vassals of the secessionist avatar will be considered to have surrendered (except if rule 1.6.7 comes into effect)

1.6.3/Upon failure of the secession, all lands belonging to the secessionist avatar will revert to the Empire and become property of the Basileus.
Exception : if the secessionist avatar is killed/captured in a siege, then the captured province is considered property of the capturing avatar.
All lands belonging to secessionist vassals will automatically revert to the Basileus (unless rule 1.6.7 comes into effect)

1.6.4/, all funds belonging to the secession will revert to the Empire treasury (except if the failure results of a bankruptcy or if rule 1.6.7 comes into effect)

1.6.5/The fate of the captured avatars will be put into the hands of the Basileus. The Basileus can apply any conditions upon the captured, including release, execution or banishment as per Basileus power #16 (without consideration of authority).

1.6.7/Continuation of the secession:

In the event of a failure through capture/death of the secessionist avatar, vassals may choose to continue the secession, under the following conditions :

1/One among them must be appointed as new leader of the secession.
2/Requirement #1 must be met. Gift of provinces among vassals is allowed under this rule but all lands must be contiguous.
3/The treasury must be in the black.

If the secession is continued, then all funds belonging to the secession prior to the capture of the secessionist avatar remain property of the secessionist treasury.

1.7 The Magnaura and Voting :

The secessionist avatar loses automatically his power to vote upon his declaration of secession. For the purpose of the game, he should still cast his vote as “abstain on all proposals” to record his activity.

Wow!

That's a fine idea!!

Only how do I get those 5000 florins?

Does that mean that the towns should provide together income at least 5000 florins??

As I see it you will need to find them on your own or with your vassals by conquering and occupying/sacking/exterminating and declaring the secession at the same time...

Only then would the taxes from the city you own go to your treasury instead of into the Basileus' coffers...

Wait, do you want to actually try and calculate the income and expenses of each individual city in the separate kingdom? If so, I'm almost positive that is way, way too complicated to implement. The first time I read this I thought all income was just via conquering/sacking/ransoming from battles. That's relatively easy to keep track of. However, in the very old HRE Test game, we tried to figure out an actual income and expense breakdown for each city in the game, which seems to be what you're talking about now. It was extremely complicated, required an excel spreadsheet that few people even understood, and in the end turned out to be completely inaccurate anyway. IMO, if you want to do this you have to figure out a way to deal with the economics without doing major number crunching.

Maybe use some approximate number depending on variables such as number of cities and size, upkeep of units and agents, recruitment and building orders.

Expenses of the secession wouldn't be subtracted from the Empire treasury but from the secession treasury but Taxes from the Secessionist cities shouldn't be added to the Empire treasury neither.

Working with an approximation seems best and should only require some small adjustment at the start or end of each turn.

The secession shouldn't have to be on the offensive to remain alive, hence it needs some kind of regular income. The sacking bounty is just to egt it started so that the upkeep of the secessionist armies doesn't drag its treasury in the red right from the start.

I'm open to any suggestion about how to handle this in the best way.

Cool idea:grin:

A simple formula could probably be developed with # of cities, # of castles, market/port/agriculture upgrades all as variables. How much they would be worth would be determined by a consensus of what kind of army a nation with that kind of economy could field.

For example, using the above variables on my 4 settlements we could come to an agreemant(when this rule is created) that a reasonable army for the Woadistan Empire could be 3 units of militia, 2 skythikons, and 1 Trebizond archer. I could then have an army which costs up to the equivalent of the before mentioned army.

Does that make any sense?:dizzy2:

That's a great idea. :yes:

I'd volunteer to handle the math for at least one secession if necessary, although I can see the desire for simplification for very large ones. :dizzy2:

I very highly encourage anyone discussing this rule to read the HRE Test OOC Thread and the HRE Test Imperial Orders Thread. The former is the discussion of what we were trying to do with the rules. The latter is the proof of how impossible it was to keep track of the financial information, and why the idea was completely abandoned for KotR.

Unless the financial information is extremely easy to keep track of, I will not volunteer to do it. Someone else will have to do the math.

Actually, the math could be rounded off I suppose, from the base treasury - X settlements of Y total settlements = Z amount of income. So, say we have 4/30 settlements, then that player receives 4/30ths of the total amount of the factional income. If the Total faction income is 20,000 per turn, then that player receives 2,667 Florins per turn. This automatically takes into account wages and upkeep as well. As a possible bonus, the player then receives a "Princes Purse" of 250 florins per settlement, thus increasing total income by the above formula by 3,667 per turn - this should be more then adequate.

Is that easy enough?

Ooooh, spreadsheets.

I see the potential nightmare in the accounting of a rebel state, even for a fairly small secession.

I take it a secession could result in a semi-stable splinter state (assuming the new state and one they're rebelling from reach a point where they are too powerful/unwilling to absorb eachother in a war). If so infrastructure improvement is likely to become a concern to the rebels after the defeat of any immediate threats (i.e. large loyalist armies).

Maybe as far as the armies go we could use the same rules we currently have for how many troops a House are entitled to. If the rebel armies fall below this point they can retrain or recruit troops to top off. Sackings, ransoms, etc. would allow one time expenditures on troops and infrastructure.

Assuming a successful secession, available money for infrastructure improvements could be figured out with a similar system, or maybe just give the secession leader the ability to prioritize, say, 1 building twice a term for every 4 settlements he owns (the exact ratio used would likely need tweaking ,trying to strike a balance between allowing the new state to spend some funds on buildings without favoring them so the real empire is getting cheated out of florins).

It would still add work but wouldn't be as hellish as having to constantly monitor wages, corruption, income, etc.

What am I, chopped liver? :shame:

If that's a reference to me, I was writing my post when you posted your own. I was trying to run with Woad's idea and add a way to allow infrastructure improvements as well as armies for the new state. :clown:

And I was trying to take care of the financial situation :yes:

Thoughts?

A static amount, while simple makes every province absolutely equal, let's say in the example above you have the three worst provinces of the Empire, you shouldn't be able to pull out as much troops as if you had the three best. Also it makes building any economic improvement buildings largely irrelevant for their cost.

Then again, if we don't implement something static like YLC's proposes then we risk over complication for nothing. I don't think we should need an accountant to make this rule work.

Why don't we rank the income on the level of the settlement, with city settlements generating more than castles?

For example:

Village: 300 florins
Small Town: 500 florins
Large Town: 750 florins
City: 1000
Large City: 1500
Huge City: 2000

Castles:

Motte and Bailey: 200
Wooden Castle: 450
Castle: 600
Fortress: 900
Citadel: 1250

Something like that. It would mean the secessionist didn't get as much value as the real in-game income, but that's the price for being a rebel.

I like that better than a plain static income.

Could economic structures give a % bonus on the settlement's income?

Then there is the matter of setting taxes, why set them at anything but low in this system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

And I was trying to take care of the financial situation :yes:

Thoughts?

---

I think that pretty much what we all are doing. :yes:

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

A static amount, while simple makes every province absolutely equal, let's say in the example above you have the three worst provinces of the Empire, you shouldn't be able to pull out as much troops as if you had the three best. Also it makes building any economic improvement buildings largely irrelevant for their cost.

Then again, if we don't implement something static like YLC's proposes then we risk over complication for nothing. I don't think we should need an accountant to make this rule work.

---

That's pretty much the my biggest concern with my plan. :yes:

As far as the armies, Houses already get their required armies without concern to settlement quality, and poorly developed settlements would make weak armies. They also have cheaper upgrades, which may balance things out a bit (more developed settlements generally making more money, but also having more expensive upgrades).

YLC's plan greatly simplifies figuring out the secessionist's income, and is reasonably fair (slightly less so if their settlements contribute very little income or are richer than average, but I'd imagine most decently sized groups of contiguous settlements would average out as, well, average).

I could see some problems. For example if Woadistan was lucky enough to secede with several full stacks under their control (perhaps after getting a friendly Megas or offering to join a war important to him) they'd be costing an upkeep far out of line with the contribution of their fairly small number of settlements to the faction's coffers, and they'd still be getting the same percentage of the faction's income. In a way they'd be taking money from loyalist settlement contributions to pay their upkeep.

Bah, I'm posting too slowly. :clown:

Iggy, under your plan would the secessionists have to use that money to pay upkeep on their units or would they always make a profit? ~:)

They would have to pay the upkeep of their units. Maybe there could be a reduction, considering the secessionists would obviously command a lot of local loyalty and prestige.

As a newcomer, I have to tell you honestly I think this is not a good idea.

Getting into the game in the first place with the SS Mod and LOTR patching and all, then figuring out who's active, who is not, what are the houses, etc... it's a pretty daunting exercise. Really, look who has come on board lately. They're not exactly lining up now, and if you add this in, my feeling is you'll be hard pressed to get any fresh interest by adding in more complex rule sets.

I realize that many of you HRE vets are dying for more civil war action and PvP battles. Personally, that's not why I joined but I understand that it may be the price of admission. IMO, TC has done a phenomenal job in running this game and the active players do a great job doing what they do.

If my count is right, there are about 14-15 people currently active in the game. About 8 for one reason or another are essentially inactive. If you want to go down this path, I'd just ask you to consider exactly what the game might look like down the road in terms of participation if you want to substantially modify the game to include a brand new set of rules with a whole layer of accounting to the mix.

I understand where you're coming from, KnightnDay. But I think that secession will be like civil wars - they aren't that common due to the huge risks involved. And if you throw in these juicy wars then people will try to recruit new players to increase their power. Zim and deguerra joined the HRE KotR in the Swabian Civil war, and immediately got picked up the rebel(me) and because things were a bit elastic they quickly learnt the rules.

KnD does bring up a good point. Also, with the rules we currently have in place, and a Megas who isn't adverse to giving the secessionist a bit of supplies for roleplaying's sake I think we can get by just fine.

Perhaps, instead of including rules for secession in various "basic game" sections of the rules, include it in a separate "Rare but cool stuff" section along with civil wars. That way it seem too intimidating for a first-time player and gets the official designation as "rare" (which, I suspect, Ignoramus is correct on).

I would have to concur with KnightnDay.

looking at rules I had some concerns doing the Megas job and avoided it in KotR. Its actually not that bad or complicated and would encourage anyone else playing to think about it. However, adding any further complexity to the game regarding finances may not be in the best interest of the game at this point. I can appreciate what is being talked about and can understand the reasoning behind it but I feel it would not work on the level you would like with LotR. I think if you review the links of the test game it is self-explanatory.
Maybe a small game of players you could add that level to the finances but with the involvement of players and the fluidness of the game like LotR you won't achieve the results you wished for. :2cents:

Maybe if it was agreed that it was the secessionists' job to work out the finances(submitting them to TC to audit them) then it wouldn't add anything extra to the Megas load?

As mentioned I joined in the middle of a civil war, and one I think was in some ways more complex than some of the ideas discussed here (certainly more of a departure form regular peacetime rules, although somewhat mitigated by the degree to which TinCow kept track of everything and implemented all the changes himself).

When I first saw KotR starting I found the rules somewhat intimidating (the main reason I didn't join early on) but later all of the events of the Cataclysm (including the civil wars) drew me in. The great wall 'o text that constitutes the rules in these games became less frightening when I realized I didn't really need to know all of the rules to play. The hardest stuff is invariably taken care of by the Chancellor/megas and to a lesser extent House leaders. You can be as deeply involved or not in the rules as you wish. For my part I just had fun playing low ranking characters and trying to get into battles. :yes:

Getting back to the Civil War (more like the secession rules here than LotR Civil Wars), I think it had an opposite effect. KotR players then, like LotR players now, were always welcoming of new players. However, after the empire becomes big enough for all the players there is less of an urgency as far as courting new avatars. Everyone is mostly cooperating, wars are easy, and everything begins to slow down (even the Venetian War here has hardly been a threat to our faction, despite some big losses as far as armies and generals).

When I joined it was a fairly big deal which House I joined. Players weren't just welcoming my character, several of them really needed him. It was the same for deguerra as I recall. I was instantly immersed in an exciting part of the game and started out as an asset for the side I joined. I would have the same luck with my next character, but largely because I worked to have him join Outremer which was in a desperate situation (as a result of the Cataclysm). All the other fronts became fairly quiet after a short period of retaking lost settlements.

I think stuff like these secession rules are a great idea now that we've reached that point of no return, where we could probably take on the rest of the map combined.

I can see how the extra rules could intimidate people, but I think they'd have relatively little actual effect on new players, and that in fact an situation like a secession might provide an exciting backdrop in which new people could join.

Maybe some of the starting conditions should be dropped, and instead of anyone meeting the conditions being able to secede, it should be limited specially to one of the events TinCow has for the game. Players wanting to try it could talk it over with TinCow, and if it seems like there character is in position to try such a thing an event could be created.

To make things as easy as possible on the GM and other characters, the secessionists could watch their own finances, sending reports to the Megas. Alternatively, I would be happy to do it as long as one of the simplified proposals made is chosen rather than the original rules. :bow:

On a last note, we might not need the rules at all in cases like woad mentioned, where a neutral Megas could just make the decision what bones to throw the rebels. It's an attractive option since everything could then be handled within the normal Civil War rules. The only problem I can think of is that the bigger side could easily just install a Megas that would give their enemies nothing the next term, but that could just be the price of rebelling.

P.S. Just in case it was missed or eyes glazed over while reading that wall of poorly written text, I somewhat crazily offered to manage the finances for any upcoming secessions, assuming we decide to add them to the game. :clown:

TC is dead on. You can theorize all you want, but the only actual test of a financially decentralized game showed it very clearly to be completely impossible. It was so clear that the idea was completely dropped for KotR and never even considered or discussed for LotR. It would be unwise to try to drop it into a running game and just expect it to work out. Although I'm not too active in the game right now, I will use my OOC vote to vote down any proposal that adds accounting, until the completion of Cecil's Vassals and Valor test. If that test has a result contrary to the HRE test, then it might be worth considering putting in a very simplified version into LotR.

Well, if we have someone that is going to vote down the idea pretty much no matter what I better vote for it no matter how godawful or arcanely complex the proposed rules may end up*. :laugh4:

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well, not really, but I couldn't resist. :clown:

More seriously, if the secession rules don't include some method of making the secessionists more or or less self sufficient if they avoid being destroyed (which is pretty much guaranteed to add some extra accounting), then I'm not sure how they can be any different than an especially large civil war (if anything they'd be a bit worse for the guys seceding because of the moderately tough conditions to secede and the ability to go bankrupt, as well as losing non-contiguous settlements). It would just be a rather complicated set of rules added that don't do anything the current ones can't.

TinCow has already shown flexibility regarding gaining money from things like sacking (or seizing the "baggage train" of a defeated army) and likely could be persuaded into showing the same in response to reasonable requests by characters in a Civil War.

I like the idea of the Empire really being able to splinter as opposed to being limited to Civil Wars where one side likely completely controls the purse strings of all the others (I suppose a neutral Megas is possible but the larger the conflict the worse the fallout if he doesn't choose a side).
However, if it's going to cause a lot of problems maybe we should just handles such events as well as possible under current rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyd

TC is dead on. You can theorize all you want, but the only actual test of a financially decentralized game showed it very clearly to be completely impossible. It was so clear that the idea was completely dropped for KotR and never even considered or discussed for LotR. It would be unwise to try to drop it into a running game and just expect it to work out. Although I'm not too active in the game right now, I will use my OOC vote to vote down any proposal that adds accounting, until the completion of Cecil's Vassals and Valor test. If that test has a result contrary to the HRE test, then it might be worth considering putting in a very simplified version into LotR.

---

That is true. The test for KotR proved that going too far into the finances was waaaay too time consuming and would require that the players hire a full-time accountant to manage the game's finances.

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

I really think this idea completes LotR. Look what happened to the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade - it split into four rival empires. The fact is that the game has stalled because the intrigue has gone out of it. In KotR, the intrigue was kept strong by stable rival houses. In LotR, apart from a few conflicts with the Order and Caesar Ioannis, there hasn't been enough internal intrigue to keep the game different from a "let's conquer the AI with 20 intelligent TW veterans".

To further Ignoramus' point, look at the current situation. Ramses, YLC and Cecil have really revitalized the game by bringing in strife and uncertainty. Yet for those who want to rebel and keep their land, the situation is pretty impossible. Either they destroy all competition and establish a new order or they die. Success in this case is almost impossible without a large coalition.

With the many troubles and the large size of the Empire, anyone seceding with some of the more backwater provinces would have somewhat of chance of surviving. Also, with the state of things, getting three adjacent provinces would be pretty hard.

Nevertheless, the rules should be pretty straightforward and shouldn't be included in the basic rules, as suggested by GeneralHankerchief.

Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion! :2thumbsup:

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

It would just be a rather complicated set of rules added that don't do anything the current ones can't.

---

Really, what are the net gains from this rule? Some huge number crunching added to the mix with the benefit that some special areas within the Empire can choose their own building and recruitment from their limited funds. That's all, or am I overlooking something?

Beside the point many here made, and on which I agree, that keeping track of income and upkeep is a very complicated task in the TW games, nobody has touched on the finer legal points that I am sure will come up as soon as any secession starts.

How does our current system incorporate the secession system? When will the money be reduced from the treasury? Will it be Prioritized Units, Secessionist stuff, Prioritoized Buildings and then the rest, or Secessionist stuff first and then Prioritized Units? What happens if one side spends all the money there is and nothing is left fot the other side?

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.


So before we run off and add new rules we should see how far we can go with the current ones. And if they are truly not sufficient, discuss the thing with TinCow and get an Event started, and only if those two options fail, then we should think about introducing new rules to spice things up.

I think we are far from having reached the true potential of our current set of rules and before we have done that I don't see any need for new rules.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Actually, that's not a bad idea Ituralde! However, what if say, someone were to capture Rome, and wish to be crowned the true Roman Emperor? I'd love to have competing crowns, but how would one work that into the Rules?

Eithe he settles for also being King, or he tries to force the new rank of "Roman Emperor" upon the existing Empire, while maybe at the same time removing several privileges from the current Basileus rank. There really are no limits here. All you need is to have 2/3 of the Magnaura on your side. Either by being such a great chap or terrorrizing people with war. The third option would be to threaten Senators with death, but that could get complicated.

Of course some agreement would have to be made on how this works as I can already imagine people hiding at the opposite corner of the world from the warmonger and then just vote against his proposals anyways. Mabye we should add something in the rules that the Magnaura has to be held in the capital. This would give a big benefit to anyone holding the capital in a Civil War with a huge army, as he would be able to "persuade" Senators to vote in his fashion. But that's really just rambling on my part here. I'm sure TC would be open to any suggestion if Senators were too stalwart.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

---

Iggy summed up perfectly what I had in mind when writing the rule. And don't forget that the secession would have to get a "war chest" before being able to secede.

I would add that I wrote the rules at the request of Tincow but I would be ready to play this as an event written by Tincow, as a sort of Civil War.

The point being to shake and stir things up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Actually, that's not a bad idea Ituralde! However, what if say, someone were to capture Rome, and wish to be crowned the true Roman Emperor? I'd love to have competing crowns, but how would one work that into the Rules?

---

Isn't there already a Western Roman Emperor? The emperor of the HRE. How many Roman emperors can you have? :clown:

I am simplifying the situation actually. If the Pope is killed, then the HRE loses it's legitimacy, and whoever controls Rome is the real Roman Emperor, so therefore, it would only be 1 Emperor :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion! :2thumbsup:

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.



Really, what are the net gains from this rule? Some huge number crunching added to the mix with the benefit that some special areas within the Empire can choose their own building and recruitment from their limited funds. That's all, or am I overlooking something?

Beside the point many here made, and on which I agree, that keeping track of income and upkeep is a very complicated task in the TW games, nobody has touched on the finer legal points that I am sure will come up as soon as any secession starts.

How does our current system incorporate the secession system? When will the money be reduced from the treasury? Will it be Prioritized Units, Secessionist stuff, Prioritoized Buildings and then the rest, or Secessionist stuff first and then Prioritized Units? What happens if one side spends all the money there is and nothing is left fot the other side?

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.


So before we run off and add new rules we should see how far we can go with the current ones. And if they are truly not sufficient, discuss the thing with TinCow and get an Event started, and only if those two options fail, then we should think about introducing new rules to spice things up.

I think we are far from having reached the true potential of our current set of rules and before we have done that I don't see any need for new rules.

Cheers!

Ituralde

---

Ituralde, I agree that the rule could become a nightmare if made too complicated. But like I've pointed out before, we are not doing anything drastic. We are simply allowing civil wars to have permanent results.

The current system makes almost all civil wars unsustainable. Whoever has the Megas wins the war. With that kind of advantage no one will start a war without a friendly Megas, and as we've seen we have had a grand total of 1 battle from three civil wars, two of them which involved at least half the players.

All the complicated things: prioritised units, prioritised buildings, who moves who avatar and what not do not apply to the secessionists. In fact, it would make it easier for the Megas, as there are less players' SOTs to worry about.

The financial side looks daunting, but I feel that too many comparisons are being made with the KotR Test Game. There, we were trying to micromanage each settlement's recruitment and construction with it's own income. Here, we are reckoning each secessionists' settlement as generating a set amount of florins per level. No fuss, no problem. You have a minor city? It gets you 1000 florins in taxes. As simple as that. Whether it has 6000 or 60000 people, it still generates you 1000 florins. You want a 20 unit elite army? Then you better make sure you have enough settlements to afford the 6,000 florin upkeep bill.

All of the adding and subtracting would take less than 20 minutes, and two people have already offered to spend their own time implementing this rule. It would not bother TinCow, it would not bother the Megas. All the adding and subtracting would be taken care of.

Exactly, the brunt of the work falls on the shoulder of the Secessionist player.

It is up to him to keep track of what he is able to do with the funds at his disposal.

The idea has been trotting in my head since the Komneni-Tagaris war. Noone wanted to commit themselves because any gains would have been short-term only.

The secession cuts off any Megas intervention and thus allows Civil Wars to be led even when confronted with a hostile Megas.

But Civil Wars can have permanent results if you pull them through to the end. This way as I said you put the results before the actual War for which I see little reason. If people want changes and they can only accomplish them through war they should first fight and then see what results they can get. Long term results are possible, people have just not been willing to accomplish them yet.

Also to your Megas argument. You had a friendly Megas in power and still did not win the Civil War. Since people keep their PUs even during a Civil War they still have some means to sustain their efforts.

None of you has adressed where the funds will come from when there isn't enouh money to supply both the loyalists and the secessionists. It is good if someone else takes care of the financial side of things, but if the system is so complicated that the guy in charge of the finances could make errors we wouldn't be able to find out due to the complexity then that doesn't sound like a good system.

If you really fear that waging a Civil War is not sustainable, I would be open to changing the rules where you get a certain amount of income during a Civil War to hire mercs and troops and what not. But then there would still be the problem where exactly that money is coming from and what happens if the Megas decides to spend it on building a Cathedral for example.

Bingo!

:idea2:

What if we the secessionists were allotted "Mercenary Slots" - depending on some unestablished variable that pertains to their success rate, they can recruit a certain amount of mercenaries, and the amount paid for the mercenaries is automatically refunded from the treasury. IN this way, one could properly represent someone using their personal fortune to fight said civil war. This allows some independence from the Megas as well.

The fact is that during "my" civil war funds from my provinces kept on going to my enemy's treasury (blasphemy, if you ask me).

As to having a friendly Megas, it surely did not feel that way, though I'll have to admit it was not hostile either.

The purpose of the rule I proposed is to give the rebel party in a civil war some kind of financial autonomy and also to make the loyalist feel that they are losing something, hence to spur them into action.

If you're the Basileus and you've lost three or more of your most valuable provinces, you'll certainly be hard pressed to regain control of them. It should be a risk-cost assessment about whether you're willing to commit X number of troops (with a cost of Y) to retrieve the lost provinces and their Z income of taxes.

As to the problem of the shortage of funds, the problem should not exist as the rebel funds will be part of the main treasury. And do not forget that bankruptcy will spell the doom of the secession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Bingo!

:idea2:

What if we the secessionists were allotted "Mercenary Slots" - depending on some unestablished variable that pertains to their success rate, they can recruit a certain amount of mercenaries, and the amount paid for the mercenaries is automatically refunded from the treasury. IN this way, one could properly represent someone using their personal fortune to fight said civil war. This allows some independence from the Megas as well.

---

I do not like this idea...

I prefer to have the secession rely on "real" funds as it leaves a sword hanging above its head. This is why I chose to require that any secessionist lay its hands on an "ingame war chest" by way of sacking or ransom or any other means that generates large amounts of ingame cash.

The rebels have all the facilities of their cities to provide them with troops without having to resort to mercenaries, though they still may do it from the mercenary pool and from their own funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

As to the problem of the shortage of funds, the problem should not exist as the rebel funds will be part of the main treasury. And do not forget that bankruptcy will spell the doom of the secession.

---

During my term as Megas there was always more things to spend money on than there was money, meaning the treasury was always empty at the end of the turn. Sometimes throuhg PUs, sometimes throuhg PBs alone.

If I have the time I probably do it myself, but has anyone bothered to actually count the amount of taxes "lost" and the amount of upkeep gained for free? Sure the Empire gets your taxes, but then your army is paid no matter what. Maybe if we knew these numbers we could better judge how a Civil War party would stand financially.

Also you can always put your taxes as low as possible during a Civil War. I understand your concerns but I don't think the rules you proposed would truly solve the problem and then not without themselves creating a score of problems we hadn't thought about. Before anyone doesn't wage a full Civil War where he committs all of his possessions to victory and still fails due to the unfairness of the situation then I might be willing to concede some of the points. Right now, I'm just not convinced the benefits are worth the cost.

If three of your best three cities secede, then you'd expect to be in financial trouble. If Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch went, then there would be a massive hole in the budget, yes. But that also would mean that the Megas and Basileus couldn't just sit on their backside until boredom brings an end to the civil war.

And the rebels would not get free upkeep. They'd have to pay their own troops out of their own money. No free handouts here.

BTW, all this debate is good for the game. Look at how many posts we've had today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I do not like this idea...

I prefer to have the secession rely on "real" funds as it leaves a sword hanging above its head. This is why I chose to require that any secessionist lay its hands on an "ingame war chest" by way of sacking or ransom or any other means that generates large amounts of ingame cash.

The rebels have all the facilities of their cities to provide them with troops without having to resort to mercenaries, though they still may do it from the mercenary pool and from their own funds.

---

Thats the idea - sorry if I wrote it half-formed.

The idea is that it provides the necessary independence from the Megas - that is what is needed - without massive calculations. Say you sack a city for 5000 florins. This will be recorded down as your private war funds. The total gained form the sacking that would go to the treasury is removed, and the game continues as normal, until you wish to use your money. Like normal, you would pay for it, and the amount would be subtracted from your private funds. This of course has the negative side effect of subtracting from the treasury, but that can be fixed by adding the total back in - essentially achieving what we are after without massive calculations, without fear of a belligerent Megas, and with the benefit of control. We can add in Iggy's "certain florins for certain places" plan to sum it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Thats the idea - sorry if I wrote it half-formed.

The idea is that it provides the necessary independence from the Megas - that is what is needed - without massive calculations. Say you sack a city for 5000 florins. This will be recorded down as your private war funds. The total gained form the sacking that would go to the treasury is removed, and the game continues as normal, until you wish to use your money. Like normal, you would pay for it, and the amount would be subtracted from your private funds. This of course has the negative side effect of subtracting from the treasury, but that can be fixed by adding the total back in - essentially achieving what we are after without massive calculations, without fear of a belligerent Megas, and with the benefit of control. We can add in Iggy's "certain florins for certain places" plan to sum it up.

---

But with this idea, doesn't the Empire still pay for your troop upkeep? So basically when you sack you just get a bunch of money to recruit units and then the other side has to pay their upkeep, while they still have to purchase their units normally and pay their upkeep cost. Or am I getting this wrong?

My idea was to simply cut the income generated by secessionist settlements from the loyalists and add back in the unit upkeep of the secessionist units.

That way, the loyalists do not pay anything for the secessionists, and the only negative is not gaining the income from settlements they don't control. Seems fair to me.

In case there was any confusion I was referring to YLC's idea.

I'm in favor of secessions being possible by the rules as long as the math is kept simple and can be understood by all players.

I think this rule would give a fighting chance for those who rebel without necessarily a political cause or and ideological one and still remain fair to both parties.

TF, the upkeep would be factored in as a cost - it would be taken care of much like the how the Crusade was handled.

The problem with civil wars is overall independence from the Megas so that you are not unable to wage the civil war. Otherwise, all you have to do is elect a Megas loyal to your House, and then go stomp on everyone else's anthills - there won't be a thing they could do about it, since they would lack the proper funding.

So, if there are to be any rules changes, IMHO they have to offer simplicity+indepedence. I think thats what my proposal is :sweatdrop:

If I remember correctly, in the Crusade the upkeep of unit was reimbursed to the Empire coffer by TC. Going that route still requires calculation, although to a lesser degree. My biggest concern is still that these are free units. This means you can just roam around and dodge other armies, fight only when you want to. With the secession rules, you have to defend your settlements or risk losing income for maintaining your troops. While its more complicated to manage, I personally find that idea more appealing and already two people offered to do the number crunching. Heck, I'd be willing to do it if it means adding more tensions in the game. :yes:

Well, my suggestion only took into account the training and maintaining of troops and the constructions of buildings. I then offered my theory be partnered to Iggy's for actual income. The idea is to separate the two incomes effectively so that the secessionist can have independence without hampering the loyalists treasury.

I still don't see why the current system is not sufficient for the purposes you want.
Income from your settlement would probably be negated by your army upkeep anyhow.

As I said before, if you want independence from the Megas declare Civil War and fight for that right.

If you only want Civil Wars then the current system has enough to offer as well.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I really don't see the problem. We haven't had one proper Civil War yet. Nobody steamrolled the opposition with a friendly Megas and no one was crushed because of an evil Megas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Getting back to the Civil War (more like the secession rules here than LotR Civil Wars), I think it had an opposite effect. KotR players then, like LotR players now, were always welcoming of new players. However, after the empire becomes big enough for all the players there is less of an urgency as far as courting new avatars. Everyone is mostly cooperating, wars are easy, and everything begins to slow down (even the Venetian War here has hardly been a threat to our faction, despite some big losses as far as armies and generals).

When I joined it was a fairly big deal which House I joined. Players weren't just welcoming my character, several of them really needed him. It was the same for deguerra as I recall. I was instantly immersed in an exciting part of the game and started out as an asset for the side I joined. I would have the same luck with my next character, but largely because I worked to have him join Outremer which was in a desperate situation (as a result of the Cataclysm). All the other fronts became fairly quiet after a short period of retaking lost settlements.

I think stuff like these secession rules are a great idea now that we've reached that point of no return, where we could probably take on the rest of the map combined.

---

This is why PvP was built into LotR from the beginning. Both of the previous games (WotS and KotR) reached this point eventually and then turned to a round of PvP as kind of a celebration before ending. PvP was incorporated into LotR so that the in-fighting could occur much earlier and thus make a longer and more sustainable challenge for the players. Unfortunately, no one wanted to do it until we got so large that we were essentially at the WotS and KotR end-game levels. I still don't understand where this aversion came from, but trust me, it was caused by the players, not the rules. The AI will NEVER provide the same challenge that other players will. I tried to encourage this internal competition from day one, but no one really took it by the bit until very recently. You can change the rules, but you can't change the inclinations of the players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

That is true. The test for KotR proved that going too far into the finances was waaaay too time consuming and would require that the players hire a full-time accountant to manage the game's finances.

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

---

Actually, that can take a very long time to add up. You have to open up the info scroll for every single secessionist unit and the trade screen for every single secessionist town. You then have to add that all up, format it, and post it in some conceivable pattern. I know how long updates like this take, and that would probably take an extra hour to do properly. And the key is that it has to be done at the beginning of every single turn of the game. If the Megas is not doing it (I will veto any RC that puts that burden on him, because no one will want the job), then the game is frozen until the 'Economist' downloads the saves and does all the math. What if that person isn't around for 12 hours? 24 hours? You're talking about a major slowdown in LotR just to do this 'minimal' amount of calculations. If there's one thing I've learned from the LotR rule set, it's that efficiency must trump all other considerations when you're creating a game that is this ambitious. Any system that requires calculating the actual income and expenses of a certain segment of the Empire is not efficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.

---

I like this idea a great deal. I specifically made the 'rank' system extremely flexible so that we could add in stuff like this. It would be very easy to make a special 'Rebel' or "Secessionist' rank that achieves everything that people want, without the math. I've got to go to work at the moment, but once I get there I'll draw a basic outline of what this rank could be.

We've had quite a few rule changes in the course of this game. Personally, I don't like rules being changed while a game is still going.

I know it is inevitable to a certain extent in this type of game, but is this really necessary?

Personally, I liked the original setup (the rules as they were when the game started). A correction here and there if rules seem to be contradicting themselves or if they are unclear, ok, but changing them to the extent that you get a game that is completely different than how it started?

As a player and just speaking for me personally, frequent rule changes in the course of a game take away the joy.

a) I play games for fun. b) I was having fun => I don't see the need for change :shrug:

EXAMPLE : in the beginning you needed to acquire a certain rank to have your own private army and to have some real fun. So, I tried to get my character to a sufficient rank, only to see the rules change. Now, you can just jump on a captain led stack and there you go: you have an army. With this secession thing, rank is no longer important, land is. These rule changes interfere with my approach. Yes, I play a game with ruleset A. So, I work to a goal within the framework of rule set A. If rule set A is turned into B and thus the framework changes drastically, well, that's not fun.

I agree with Andres. Before we change any rules and put all of our energy in this OOC discussion, why not put it into the game and try to achieve those things there. Who knows where it leads. I would find it more interesting to have these things appear naturally out of the game context than have the script laid out by a new set of rules and then just follow them.

Please remember that said set of rules was proposed because I forwarded to Tincow a plan I had in mind, which he said could be enabled only through a Rule Change...

I am all for trying and going with my plan inside uour current set of rules, provided that my concerns with regard to the particular situation are taken into account.

I am not trying to create an undue advantage for my avatar but rather trying to create a believable and entertaining situation of Civil War, one that will condition action on both parts and not some dilly-dallying like we've seen until now (and for which I'm partly responsible :whip:)

The essential part being that by entering into a state of Civil War parts of the Empire should be cut-off from Central Power, funds should be on the wane and fortunes of war should belong to the taker.

A civil war is simply not a simple feudal quarrel : it has more scope. It should endanger the very essence of the Empire, things which the current set of rules do not create, IMHO.

Ok, here's a rough draft of a way to implement a secession system through ranks only. This cuts out all the economic issues and keeps things consistent with the current rule set. If a secession system is going to be included, this is the format that I would prefer to have it in. I will not get involved in the discussion as to whether a secession system is good for the game or not. I can live with it either way, so I leave it up to the players to decide via a vote on a Rule Change.

Quote:

---

Rebel:
Requirements:
(1) Must own at least 2 contiguous provinces and then declare oneself a Rebel in a public thread OR
(2) Be a vassal of a Rebel.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Rebel are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Rebel Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, rather than swearing, the Rebel must designate one of his provinces as his Capital. The Capital must be contiguous to at least one other province owned by the Rebel or any of his vassals. At the moment that the Capital is declared, provinces owned by the Rebel or his vassals which are not connected to the Capital by contiguous land borders are instantly lost and become the property of the Basileus. This territory will be known as the Rebel's 'Realm.'
(3) If the Rebel rank is obtained by declaration, the Senator automatically breaks any Oath to his Lord.
(4) The Megas Logothetes may not move any Captain led stack within the Realm, nor any fleet in the port of a settlement in the Realm.
(5) Is not bound by any Edicts or Amendments.
Penalties:
(1) When this rank is obtained, the Rebel is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Rebels cannot make Peace Treaties.
(2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(3) Cannot prioritize any Units or Buildings.
(4) Taxes are set to Very High in all settlements within the Realm.
(5) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Rebel is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.

Secessionist:
Requirements:
(1) Must have been a Rebel for 5 turns OR
(2) Be a vassal of a Secessionist.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Secessionist are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Secessionist Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) The Megas Logothetes may not move any Captain led stack within the Realm, nor any fleet in the port of a settlement in the Realm.
(3) Is not bound by any Edicts or Amendments.
Penalties:
(1) When this rank is obtained, the Secessionist is considered to have made an automatic declaration of war against all Senators who are still part of the Empire. Secessionists cannot make Peace Treaties.
(2) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(3) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Secessionist is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.

Independent Ruler:
Requirements:
(1) Must have been a Secessionist for 5 turns OR
(2) Be a vassal of an Independent Ruler.
Influence: None
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Powers and Penalties of the Independent Ruler are added on top of the Powers and Penalties of the Senator’s other feudal rank(s). In the event of contradictory Powers and Penalties, the Independent Ruler's Powers and Penalties take precedence.
(2) May create his own title instead of "Independent Ruler" and may determine the correlating titles of all his vassals.
(3) The Megas Logothetes may not move any Captain led stack within the Realm, nor any fleet in the port of a settlement in the Realm.
(4) If this rank is held during a Normal Senate Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 unit per province within the Realm and 1 building per 3 provinces within the Realm per full 10 turn Megas Logothetes term. This Power is cumulative with the ability to Prioritize units under any other rank held by the Independent Ruler.
(5) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(6) Is not bound by any Edicts or Amendments.
(7) Unless they have the permission of the Independent Ruler, any neutral Senator entering a province of the Realm is considered to have automatically declared war on the Independent Ruler.
(8) During any Senate session, can give a temporary bonus of 1 influence to any loyal Senator of the Empire for every 2 provinces in the Realm. The loyal Senator must agree to accept this temporary bonus before it can be added. The offer and acceptance of the bonus may be kept secret until all votes are tallied.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot propose or vote on Edicts or Amendments in any Senate session. Cannot run for or vote in the election for Megas Logothetes.
(2) If the Capital is captured by a hostile Senator, the rank of Independent Ruler is lost. In order to continue the Rebellion, the Senator must proclaim himself a Rebel again, assuming he still meets the requirements for it.
(3) Can move the Capital to another province within the Realm, but this results in the Independent Ruler becoming a Secessionist once again.

---

This is essentially a three-tiered system for rebellions. Someone declares themselves a rebel, and *poof*, they're a rebel (if they meet the land requirements). Their vassals go with them into the rebellion, but can bow out easily by breaking the oath and then declaring neutrality to get out of the wars. The rebel has to have multiple contiguous provinces, and delegates one province as the Capital. This settlement must be very well protected, because if it is lost at any point, the Rebel loses all progress towards independence and must either give up or reset the clock back to zero and start again. For the first five turns (Rebel) the 'Realm' is in turmoil and the Rebel gets no benefits. He has to survive off of what he has already accumulated, and taxes are set to Very High to mimic the immense social problems that the locals would have with breaking away from the Empire. The Independent Ruler can also meddle in the politics of the Empire by giving extra influence to someone who favors his policies, but he requires a willing lackey in the Senate in order to do so.

If the Rebel survives 5 turns, then his lands start to return to order. He regains the ability to prioritize units and set his own tax rates. After a further 5 turns (10 total) he is finally an independent kingdom and can make peace with the rest of the Empire. At this point, he gets a bonus to both PUs and PBs, in reflection of the prestige of successfully rebelling. This bonus can grow extremely large if large parts of the Empire are in rebellion. This in turn acts as an incentive for the Empire to deal with growing Independent states. Small rebellions will not impact the state much, but large ones could effectively bankrupt the state and hinder all economic growth.

Due to not being part of the Empire, none of these ranks are subject to the laws of the Empire, but they also cannot take part in governing it. They can still speak in the Magnaura if the Basileus allows it, but they can't do much else (except Rule Changes). They have to determine for themselves how their own kingdom is to be managed and are responsible for enforcing their own rules on their own subjects, just like in a House.

I like TinCow's proposal best. Simple, effective and creates both immediate and long term benefits to having a civil war. Besides it makes land worth something even if you have more land than people.

The problem with civil wars has been (at least from my perspective) that there really isn't a long term benefit. Power in this game is a) size of the house and b) land. After the first two terms there has been ample land for everyone and it's almost always easier to take land from the AI. So it's all about getting people to join your house and that is as much an OOC as IC effort. So the only real power you could gain from a civil war is forcing someone to swear an oath to you. And doing that might have quite severe repercussions in Magnaura.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan

The problem with civil wars has been (at least from my perspective) that there really isn't a long term benefit. Power in this game is a) size of the house and b) land. After the first two terms there has been ample land for everyone and it's almost always easier to take land from the AI. So it's all about getting people to join your house and that is as much an OOC as IC effort. So the only real power you could gain from a civil war is forcing someone to swear an oath to you. And doing that might have quite severe repercussions in Magnaura.

---

Very accurate assessment if you ask me!

I find the set of rules agreeable though I find the Very High taxes penalties a bit harsh. Mostly because it doesn't take into account the fact that you wouldn't anymore suffer the distance to capital penalty.

Second, this set of rules still doesn't take into account the possibility for the rebel/secessionist to keep for himself any ransom/sacking money.

Lastly, this set of rule doesn't take into account the possibility for the rebel to recruit units or build improvements.

1) Of course you would suffer the distance to capital penalty, at least for a short while. Just because you declare independence one moment does not mean the inhabitents of your provinces will suddenly become instantly loyal to you. Civil revolts are very likely, and it would take a strong hand or a very charismatic leader to keep people in order during such a rebellion. If you've got unpopular personality traits and not a large enough army to keep order on VH taxes, you are essentially rebelling while very weak and you will have a hard time suviving through it. In any case, taxes in castles can't be changed, so there won't be rebellions there. The point is that for the first 5 turns, rebels will likely have to focus exclusively on keeping order in their Realm, not expanding. This seems realistic to me.

2) This is correct, but why do you need that money? Once you are fully independent, you get more PUs and PBs than other people of the same rank as you. Plus, keeping track of ransom/sacking money just throws us back into the economics headache.

3) Yes it does, once you're a Secessionist you get access to your PUs and PBs just like anyone else. When you finally become an Independent Ruler, you actually get a very large number of them, and that number increases with the amount of land you obtain.

Hang on a second, didn't LotR get set up as a hotseat style game from the start anyway? Why don't we just enable a second nation to be played? With a little diplomacy it should be possible to set up any other faction as Byzantium 2 or whatever.

There's the one time akwardness of recreating avatars that want to switch sides, but then there's no tracking economic data or anything else because the game does it all for you. No need for more rules when there's a mechanism already in place, right?

:egypt: