KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Another good point from Cecil....

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Another good point from Cecil....

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

I have a lot of confidence in 2 things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

!@#$

Here I thought you were going to disagree with me!

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

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

I will never forgive this! Never!

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

:clown:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

!@#$

Here I thought you were going to disagree with me!

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

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

I will never forgive this! Never!

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

:clown:

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

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

---

Sorry there PK...:clown:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Sorry there PK...:clown:

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

---

with who? Jan's ghost? :laugh4:

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

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

Mind if I argued with you instead :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Mind if I argued with you instead :grin:

---

:beam:

yay! :balloon2:

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

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

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

Tincow and possibly Econ21 after he returns from his break.

After shaking off a bit of the post KotR blues, I've reviewed the rules for the second time.

Considering Rank Stability, I have to second the idea that rank requirements only be calculated once a Term, either before or after the Legislative Session. I'd say before, so Lieges are a bit more responsive to constituents. I'd also suggest that inactivity be taken into account at that time. Once every two terms seems a bit unresponsive.

I'm against Renting land, my thoughts on this are posted in the relevant poll.

Of course, I won't have a true feel for the rules until we begin playing.
If KotR is any indication, this new Charter will be a living document.

I'm still not over the post KotR blues yet, but I'm around...:burnout:

If we are going to yoyo ranks, then just before election time is the best point. No more and no less. At least that creates some stability for a period of time and allows for the rest of the game mechanics to work.

I don't think we should include land as part of the process. If we do, then just one province as part of gaining the first rank (nice historical touch) and that's it, and there is certainly no "renting" concept to confuse things further.

My idea on oath swearing is this:

If both parties agree, then there is no limit to oath breaking/taking except when a "governing body" is in session.

You can always break an oath.

But if you break one without the permission of your lord, you can only re-make an oath once per session.

That way, the Houses can re-arrange at will. The vassals have a small measure of power but not too much. If you wish to be in no House, that should be your right. It's up to you if you don't want the protection/security of being part of an oath lineage. But if you don't like a House, and leave without the lord's permission, then if you swear to another lord, you can still leave, but you can't swear again until the next session.

I don't like the idea of institutionalised oath breaking being a part of the actual rules.

An oath should be given and then handled on a case by case basis using sometype of IC court system. The idea that a noble can just "up and leave" (which I agree should be allowed in the game) is anthema to me and something that just feel's wrong in a game based around Medieval times.

PK, do you think there another option for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I don't like the idea of institutionalised oath breaking being a part of the actual rules.

An oath should be given and then handled on a case by case basis using sometype of IC court system. The idea that a noble can just "up and leave" (which I agree should be allowed in the game) is anthema to me and something that just feel's wrong in a game based around Medieval times.

PK, do you think there another option for this?

---

Keep in mind that there is still the rule that says a noble can declare war on his vassal for breaking the oath. And for the purpose of the rules, the noble would be the defender since he is the offended party. I think this will limit the amount of oath-breaking that happen without the lord's permission. I think the option should be there for the vassal to leave if he wants but there can be severe consequences. Such as the fact that the noble can declare civil war, hunt the former vassal down, and kill him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Keep in mind that there is still the rule that says a noble can declare war on his vassal for breaking the oath. And for the purpose of the rules, the noble would be the defender since he is the offended party. I think this will limit the amount of oath-breaking that happen without the lord's permission. I think the option should be there for the vassal to leave if he wants but there can be severe consequences. Such as the fact that the noble can declare civil war, hunt the former vassal down, and kill him.

---

Good points...

I just don't like it...it seems a little irrational :beam: I guess that's my inbuilt ethical side coming out.

If you break and oath with me...

I'll come after you with a blunt spoon...

...because it takes a lot longer to bludgeon someone to death with a blunt spoon. :beam:

Everyone might want to take note of that statement for future reference. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Good points...

I just don't like it...it seems a little irrational :beam: I guess that's my inbuilt ethical side coming out.

If you break and oath with me...

I'll come after you with a blunt spoon...

...because it takes a lot longer to bludgeon someone to death with a blunt spoon. :beam:

Everyone might want to take note of that statement for future reference. :clown:

---

"a spoon brother? why not an axe?"

"because it's blunt you twit! It will urrt more!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

"a spoon brother? why not an axe?"

"because it's blunt you twit! It will urrt more!"

---

LOL.

Exactly. Gotta go PK.

@ All: Have a good day and night. See you all tomorrow.

P.S. Good work TC. The test game looks very interesting.

Ok, based on the Feudal Structure Stability Poll, I think it's pretty clear that the feudal ranks need to branch out a bit instead of being completely linear. I will get to work on a few alternate systems that we can discuss. However, we're all very divided about the land issues, both renting and rank based on land. I've proposed some ideas about both in the past, but I've got to be honest that I don't like them and I think they'll cause more problems than benefits. If you guys want to implement some kind of land rules, I need to see a consensus form on the matter. If it remains split on both issues, I'm not going to implement them.

Also, since we seem to have embraced the ability to 'seize' units and hold onto them permanently, I would like to eliminate the following text from both Rule 4.1 (Private Armies) and Rule 4.2 (Royal Armies):

Quote:

---

All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise.

---

As I said in my original commentary, since the noblemen will have the ability to control the composition of their own armies, the Private/Royal Armies could simply be a ‘minimum number of units’ requirement which leaves the quality up to the politics of the game. It would make the early game simpler and would add an extra level of politics and negotiation. It will also make people more cautious about risking rare and valuable units in battle, since the Chancellor could replace them with militia if he really wanted. Anything that brings IC considerations into a player's battle against the AI is a good thing IMO.

I have not yet read all comments in this thread, probably about half of the answers, so please forgive me any oversight if I touch too heavily on stuff that has already been mentioned.

First off I was a little surprised to see this ruleset from TinCow. During my active time and also during my absence I have also thought about future possibilities for this kind of game and in my mind I have always tended towards a more open feudal structure where Houses and their followers are made up solely through the decisions of the players. The surprise was only little, because playing with TinCow and seeing him handle things like the Cataclysm gave me the feeling that we share certain goals we want to achieve in these games.

So all in all I am quite happy with the ruleset proposed. My own ideas never made it into a precise ruleset, because I just couldn't think of a way to encompass it all. The same is true now however for TinCows rules. While I agree with them on principle and have faith in TinCow for putting concepts into abstract rulesets, I still have problems with getting the whole thing to fit in my head. I understand the ranks and their powers, but still I'm wondering how it will really pan out in a game. These things are really hard to predict beforehand so I'm willing to let myself be surprised by the system. Right now I'm still trying to figure out the exact possibilities this system offers and whether it's the best implementation of this open feudal structure. I will reread the ruleset some more and catch up on all of the thread shortly, maybe then I'll be able to pinpoint the exact things that hinder me from grasping the whole thing completely.

I'm sorry if the above is only a lot of rambling, but maybe it was helpful for some. I'm not saying that TinCows system won't work or that it's bad, quite the opposite. It's just that right now I can't get my mind around it. How does it work exactly? What are the exact consequences? I'm definetly going to follow the Test Game with interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ituralde

I'm not saying that TinCows system won't work or that it's bad, quite the opposite. It's just that right now I can't get my mind around it. How does it work exactly? What are the exact consequences? I'm definetly going to follow the Test Game with interest.

---

This is exactly why I wanted a lengthy period to discuss and tweak the rules. I'm very confident in them, but I've also been thinking about them off and on for the last 4 months. While that lets me understand them more easily, it also potentially blinds me to major flaws. Several have already been pointed out and corrected, and I still feel like there's a lot more work to be done on it. The more time that is spent analyzing them now, the better it will be when the game starts.

I expect the Test Game to mainly reveal any problems with the Civil War system and the changes to the game management which allow people more control over their armies. I don't think it will tell us much about whether the feudal structure itself is a good system. I don't really know of any way to test that which wouldn't require multiple months of play-time and character development.

Thanks to all the people who discussed this, especially Privateerkev and FLYdude often spoke my mind with their posts. I know I'm getting into this a little late, but right now I'm really intrigued by the possibilities this system offers.

To me the biggest problem also lies in the stability vs. power issue that has been discussed the most in this thread. Right now there are the two systems where you either build a ladder or a tree. (Thanks to PK for his visualization!) The one granting more power and the other granting more stability. I haven't looked at the respective poll yet, but to me the whole land ownership/renting system sounds like too much hassle for too little real effect. It adds a whole new layer of rules that doesn't achieve enough for the complication it brings to the rules. In my eyes the positive side of owning more land than is required is added stability. If you are Grand Duke under the ladder system and the bottom rung seems particularly annoying, you don't have to worry. Should he really rebel you can always give one of your spare provinces to create another Baronet. That's the added stability right there!

What bothers me more is the possibility of rapid fluctuation as it exists now. While on the one hand I find it good that Houses are able to appear out of nowhere there are some negative implications too. For example three people could band together and decide that everyone of them wants to be Viscount once in a while. So instead of forming a proper feudal hierarchy that lasts some time they just arrange for their ladder to reorganize every 10 turns. Breaking their oaths and swearing them again, pushing another one of their number to the top. While all within the rules and probably fun for the participants I would find this a major annoyance for RP purposes. Becoming a Viscount should mean something more than just being part of some whacky three way ensemble.

Another thing that has been touched upon but not to the depth I prefer is the matter of inheritance. To me this should be a big point! Maybe the family tree should factor in at this point. Right now it doesn't matter whether you're on the family tree or not, which is nice to a certain extent, but then again I especially liked the drama and excitement created by the family tree the most in KotR. Especially with the new fealty system it would be something special if your brother would not join the same House as the rest of your family. Maybe being on the family tree should give the benefit of appointing one of your sons as heir, while when you're not on the family tree your choice of heir has to be approved by the person above you in the feudal chain, ultimately leading to the FL. This would increase the FLs power and also make Princesses vastly important again. Because you now have an incentive to get on the family tree!

Spawned generals will still be able to make their fortune in this life and rise to large powers, but they know that it will be much harder for them to leave a lasting legacy due to their limited control on inheritance.

A third thing I wanted to throw in regarding the stability vs power issue was to probably change the requirements for each rank slightly. I envision a system where you have initial requirements that you need to fulfill to get a certain rank and then there are minimum requirements you need to fulfill to keep a rank.

Let's go back to the Grand Duke again. Instead of just a straight ladder under you, you need at least two more vassals that branch of somewhere. Then you can become Grand Duke. Once you are Grand Duke though, you have achieved something and deserve a little rest. You still stay Grand Duke even if you just have the ladder under you. The problem here of course would be to balance the requirements in a way that wouln't make it too hard to gain the new rank and also doesn't make it too easy to hold on to it.
Also this would prevent the Viscount scenario I described above.

So those are basically my thoughts on the major subjects. I'm interested to hear what you think!

You've outlined things very well Ituralde.

My thoughts are:

Scrap the land issue entirely for the reasons you stated. Those that are allocated land should manage it, but titles and positions in the Houses existed in KotR entirely without land being allocated and this can continue in my view, especially with the ranking system we will have in place courtesy of TC's work. If you have land then the Mod seems to place titles on you and there are some IC benefits but it should be a "nice add on" not a legislated part of the rules.

I've also raised the unnatural fluctuation mechanics which both TC and PK, plus a few others have address my worry to the point that I have now lowered my concerns on the matter.

Having said that if it's in the rules then it can be exploited as you mentioned. Given the Civil War mechanics and oath mechanics I certainly think the fluctuation mechanics should be removed entirely. It's artificial, unrealistic and with both the oath and civil war mechanics in place everyone has two ways of getting out of a situation if it becomes really unworkable. My conclusion is to allow allocation of rank but they are permanent once allocated. The idea that the head of a house can change as part of some ranking system is not a positive. IC and the other mechanics should be the way the head of a house or any other position is removed. That means they either die, they lose the oaths of the people below them, or there is a civil war in which he is deposed.

Regarding the Houses and the Family tree...I certainly want the family tree to be accurately represented in the game with no artificial changes made. The lineage and House structures mixed together would provide excellent role playing opportunities.

Ituralde makes some very good points. I'm somewhat at a loss for how to write a system that has different 'promotion' requirements from 'sustaining' requirements which is still simple and balanced. However, it occurs to me that what we really need to do is add in penalties to deter people from upsetting the feudal system without a really good reason.

While the option to declare war on a 'traitor' vassal is certainly a deterant, it won't stop the traitor from instantly being promoted from Baronet to Grand Duke if he gets together a colition of disgruntled low-level ranks. It does also seem strange to me that it's theoretically possible for a person to go from Knight to Grand Duke on the same turn. There are simple and effective solutions to both of these problems: time requirements.

1) Alter some rank requirements to read as they currently do, but add in "AND must have held LOWER LEVEL RANK) for 5 turns." If we added this to GD, Duke, and Marquess, then people could be instantly promoted up to Count, but then they would have to serve 5 years as Count, 5 years as Marquess, and 5 years as Duke before GD would become available to them. Balance could be achieved by extending, shortening, or abolishing the time requirement for the various ranks. Perhaps shorter 'time in rank' at low levels than higher.

2) Put in a 'cooling off period' for re-swearing if you break your Oath. Civil War is a major deterent, but I doubt we'll see it every time a vassal betrays his house. If we prevent someone from re-swearing after breaking an Oath for a certain period of time (maybe 5 turns, 10 at the most), people will have to really consider their choices before fleeing a House. Depending on whether we want to stop House internal re-organization or not, we could restrict the cooling off period only to oaths that are broken without the consent of the Lord.

I thought about some turn requirement too but didn't mention it because I feared it would be too artificial. The more I think about it though, the more I like it. I would propose upping it to 10 turns of being Duke before you can become Grand Duke. Maybe even make it a requirement every time. I'm sure the thing we don't want to see is an unstable House where the leader is a Grand Duke this round and Duke again the next and a Grand Duke the round after.

I'm not too keen on the cool off period though. Especially for low ranks that don't have much military resources it is the only way to escape the wrath of their former master if they can attach themselves to someone else. I don't think we should loose this as it provides a big field for intrigue. "I know your lord doesn't listen to me. Why don't you join me then you can conquer that land over there. And as a result I am a Duke and can protect youe ven better!"

And as OK mentioned earlier the point of calculation for titles is important too. Making it once before the meeting of the Legislative Body sounds fine on paper but I fear it's wide open for abuse and might lead to people only concentrating on having their required number on that turn and start to neglect it afterward.

Another idea behind the initial requirements and the minimum requirements was to give the leader of the feudal chain some freedom once he has reached a high position. I think a Duke or Grand Duke should be able to piss off his subjects to a certain extent. But this can probably be better achieved by people deciding to go the safe route and keep some more vassals than are needed for their current rank.

Which brings me to another point that just occured to me. Who exactly appoints the higher rank? If we have two Baronets one of them will become Baron, that's clear enough. But what happens now. The remaining Baronet gets another vassal pushing him up to Baron, which forces the Baron to become Viscount. But what if he'd rather be amore stable Baron? I guess he would then have to get the new Baronet to swear direct fealty to him and not to his Baronet, right?
I'm starting to confuse myself right now, but I hope the point gets across that sometimes you could get pushed to some unstable position you don't want just because your lowest vassal decides to get his own vassal. I can already imagine the nightmare these feudal chains can become if there's "cross-vassalization" so to speak. But leaving it out entirely wouldn't make sense either.

Ah this makes me shudder with anticipation with all the possibilities this system opens up, but at the same time afraid of the structure become too complex to handle. I'm really looking forward to see this in action now!

Ok, here's my first draft of a new rank structure. I have done three things.

1) I have made the system branch slightly by requiring the Marquess to have 2 loyal Counts. This significantly increases the total population requirements for higher ranks, so I have compensated by eliminating the Baronet rank. I then rebalanced the rank powers/penalties a bit to compensate for this.

2) I have added in 'time-in-rank' requirements to some of the higher levels. This will prevent anyone from instantly gaining a high rank without having first done their time at a lower rank. This should increase stability a bit. I have varied the time-in-rank requirements for the various ranks, making the higher ranks require more time, and thus become harder to achieve. However, I have also allowed the time-in-rank requirement to be 'permanently' achieved. Ituralde has expressed disagreement with this aspect of the time-in-rank requirement, but I think it’s better this way for a couple reasons. First, the time-in-rank requirements for the high levels require a long time for the high ranks. In order to get to Grand Duke, you need to have served at least 20 turns at lower level ranks. That is two full Chancellorships, not counting any extra time you served and any time you had before you got to Marquess. If we make these time limits reset every time you lose a rank, people will die of old age before they regain their old positions. This seems wrong, especially since a Grand Duke can easily be dropped down to Count or below by a properly placed defection, which would thus erase ALL 20 turns of his service. Second, I think of the time-in-rank requirement as something of an IC prestige requirement as well. Once you have done the time, you are considered by the nobility at large to be ‘worthy’ of higher rank. Simple political turmoil that temporarily changes your rank would not change the fact that you’re still regarded highly by the nobility at large. Think of Winston Churchill, for example. He was a Cabinet member and on his way to PM when he lost his seat in Parliament, thus kicking him out of government altogether. However, when he regained his seat and returned to politics, he quickly climbed back to the highest ranks of governance. Despite his complete demotion, he still was considered ‘capable’ of the higher ranks due to his previous experience.

3) I have added in a cool-down time on swearing oaths after a nobleman has broken an oath without the permission of his Lord. I understand Ituralde’s hesitation on this one, but I think it might work nicely. The requirement is short (5 turns) and meshes nicely with the Civil War by Oath Breaking rule. What this essentially does is stops low-level vassals from leaving a powerful House unless they have another powerful House that is willing to back them. Leaving a low level House isn’t a big deal, as long as the person has assembled a large enough garrison to defend themselves. They could easily have a garrison capable of handling a single Private Army if they prepare right, so it’s really only the high level Houses that would become difficult to leave. Even then, just because they can’t swear fealty for 5 turns doesn’t mean they are completely vulnerable. All it means is that if you’re going to leave a powerful House without permission, you had better have another House backing you. Their ‘new’ House will then have to defend them for 5 turns before it gets the benefit of the new vassal. This will make vassal-poaching a serious undertaking, not to be taken lightly. In addition, this will stop ‘peasant rebellions.’ Oath-breaking en mass by low-ranks will only result in lots of dead low level noblemen, not in the sudden appearance of a new and powerful House. In addition, this rule doesn't really bother high-level defections, since those ranks will still retain all their power as long as their vassals remain true to them. A Duke who bails on a Grand Duke and retains all his vassals will actually be much more powerful than his former Lord, so he doesn't need protection.

I think the end result of all of these changes is a more stable and organic structure that will grow slowly and steadily. Sudden losses of power are still possible, but gaining high ranks will take time and a certain amount of stability. Here are the proposed rule changes:

Quote:

---

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty without the permission of his Lord, he cannot swear a new Oath of Fealty until 5 turns have passed. A nobleman can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the GOVERNING BODY is in session.

---

(For 2.7, I cut off everything above Grand Duke, since no changes were made to those ranks.)

Quote:

---

2.7 – Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 2.7 takes priority over all other rules. The feudal ranks and positions are as follows:

Knight:
Requirements: None
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private or Royal Army.
(2) Cannot run for CHANCELLOR.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Baron is loyal to a higher rank.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot lead more than a half stack army unless it is a Private Army, a Royal Army, or within the borders of a province they personally control.
(2) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal GOVERNING BODY Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baron's Lord. If the Baron has no Lord, the provinces are given to the FACTION LEADER.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal.
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Viscount is loyal to a higher rank.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal
Influence: Up to 2 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Count is loyal to a higher rank.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least two Counts as vassals. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Count at some point in time.
Influence: Up to 3 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose two Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(4) Owns one Private Army.
(5) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Marquess is loyal to a higher rank.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal. Must have served 5 consecutive turns as a Marquess at some point in time.
Influence: Up to 4 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Private Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers, unless the Duke is loyal to a Grand Duke.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal. Must have served 10 consecutive turns as a Duke at some point in time.
Influence: Up to 5 Stat Influence.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) All provinces conquered by any of their vassals become their property.
(4) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(5) Owns one Royal Army.
(6) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain.
(7) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement owned by any nobleman in their feudal chain. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power.
(8) Once per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman in their chain of followers to themselves or anyone else in their chain of followers.
(9) Cannot be banned from a GOVERNING BODY Session.
(10) Can declare war on any AI faction at any time, for any reason.
(11) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per GOVERNING BODY Session.
(12) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman.

---

Please note that this system does make the high ranks very hard to achieve. A Marquess requires 6 vassals (minimum House population of 7) and 5 years-in-rank. A Duke requires 7 vassals (minimum House population of 8) and 10 years-in-rank. A Grand Duke requires 8 vassals (minimum House population of 9) and 20 years-in-rank. Under this arrangement, getting to Grand Duke will be a major, major accomplishment and is not likely to happen more than once or twice in the game, if at all.

I would like to throw in something regarding dead noblemen.
If we have civil war and people use it as a way of trying to cause ruckus for instance, it might be worthwhile considering a minimum respawn time for an avatar that dies as a result of PvP action (possibly also for AI action). Immediate (1 turn) respawn seems rather bad I suppose.

My second point is regarding banishment. There's been some discussion on that but there hasn't been a vote. Care to make one?

I see no problems with an immediate respawn because the death will erase all progress made with the previous avatar. You'll have to start from scratch, which is enough of a penalty in itself IMO.

Go ahead and make a banishment poll, but I would like to see an actual concrete proposal posted with it. I haven't seen much more than vague ideas bandied about so far. Write up some proposed rule text for it so that we can better understand what we're talking about.

I'm certainly getting a headache, but without a real concrete alternative option I am not going to hammer the logic too hard. That's just unfair on TC.

I think we are in danger of over complicating this already.

The mechanisms for abuse are starting to become apparent.

Let me give this idea a shot.

All in all there where some good, some bad and some neutral Duke's in KotR.

As Arnold I was appointed by my father and became Duke based on hereditary lines, very accurate and part of the family tree situation.

I was active and essentially provided a good basis for all the nobles who joined to the house. (At least that is the impression I got and it seemed to be confirmed at the end when there was a flurry of nobles in Austria.)

If I died I would have handed the Dukedom off to one of the Zirn sons as part of the family line...I could have easily given it to someone else outside of the family line as I am free to do so, but, it is all played out IC.

There was an instance in which separation was demanded and it was resolved through peaceful means IC between me and Becker/Cecil. Even without the current proposed mechanics in place the PvP battles would have seen a collision between Arnold and Becker if there was not resolution.

I don't see what's wrong with having the same system but having the Duke allocate titles in his 'aligned' families using two or three set positions. For example I could have made the Karl Zirn, Baron of XXXX (based on his land or anything else I chose). If I wanted to change him to a Count later on then I could have, or even higher to an Earl. These titles have set powers but are not based on land.

I'm using this system because a Dukedom is a Dukedom...you don't get to be a Count in a Dukedom without the Duke permission, likewise you don't get to be an Earl inside a counts auspice without his permission and down it goes...it's one of the simplest set ups of government known to exist.

So all that is needed is an explanation of which powers the various ranks have and then let IC relations sort out who gets what and who doesn't.

With good solid civil war mechanics in place this will allow for a game structure that can support the "nuclear option" if IC work can't resolve House issues.

I'm deliberately leaving out the rank system and oath system to see if it can be kept that simple based on what everyone else thinks.

So...am I now standing in the room naked or doesn't someone "get my drift"?:beam:

Lets both make a poll? :grin: