Successor game rules, draft one.

Game setting rules and ranks done so far, with shameless use of the LOTR ruleset as a base (with TinCow's permission). My goal has been to add some of the strong base missed from KOTR to the greater fluidity and far greater understandability of LOTR"s rules (which I know well, having tried to slog through KOTR's rules for comparison...:sweatdrop:).

Major changes vis a vis LOTR: The faction leader has more power, mainly with the addition of being able to allocate new lands. Houses are a little more rigid but provisions for starting new ones are still included. Somewhat fewer ranks although this can be changed quite easily.

I'll be trying to finish the rules draft within the next day or so, but wanted to open up what I had to discussion. This is all in the draft stages, so changes can still easily be made if there are any problems. :clown:




1. General

(a). - Game Settings:

M2TW Kingdoms with the 1.5 patch
Lands to Conquer Gold Mod
Very Hard Campaign, Very Hard Battles.
Large Unit Size
Battle Timer On
Show CPU Moves
Manage All Settlements
Only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.

(b). - Avatars: Each player will roleplay a Noble of the mighty nation of France. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this Nobles. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by the M2TW engine, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming Prince and King. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may only use agents as avatars with permission from the GM, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals. If a Man of the Hour adoption is offered to an avatar, the choice of whether to accept it is entirely up to the avatar who is the adopter.

If a player character is killed, there is a 5 turn wait to have an rgb spawned for him. He may immediately take any available fms, however.

(c). - Battles: A player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 48 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved. If a player cannot fight a battle that is assigned to them, the battle may also be fought by any player whose avatar will also be present in the battle. Under no circumstances will a battle be fought by a player whose avatar is not present in the battle. If there is no player available to fight a battle, it must be autoresolved. If there are no allocated avatars involved in the battle at all, it must be autoresolved.

(d) - Game Management: At the start of each turn, the Chancellor will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have at least 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any unit or fleet their avatar owns, and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. Player may also move any unit, fleet, or avatar they have been given specific permission to move by the respective owner, as long as that permission is posted in a public thread. The Chancellor may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving. Players may not move avatars or armies into the territory of a neutral or allied faction without the permission of an edict. Nor may they attack the settlements or armies of neutral or allied factions without a declaration of war resulting from an edict.

(e) - Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, Zim, TheFlax, or anyone they choose may create an in-game Event. Events are not limited in scope, subject matter, or method of implementation. All game rules can be violated to implement an Event. The players can prevent the implementation of any single Event through a simple majority of unweighted votes.

(f) - Game Master: Zim will serve as Game Master and is responsible for management of the game and enforcement of the Game Rules. Zim can delegate any of his powers to another person whenever he chooses. Zim has the ability to create stacks for the AI.

2. Houses

(a). - Starting Houses: There are four starting Houses, named The Duchy of Bourgogne, The Duchy of Aquitaine, The Duchy of Lorraine and The Duchy of Bretagne. These starting Houses are to be initially led by Raymond de Provence, Prince Louis, Hugues de Champagne and Alain de Rohan, respectively. The leaders of these starting Houses are exempt from any obligations to join the Houses of their parents, and are the first Dukes of their respective Houses.

All other family members start in the House of their parents and are considered to have sworn an oath of fealty to their "parent", regardless of whether they are born into the family, are adopted, or marry into it. They are able to break their familial oath and attempt to join another House, start a new one, or remain independent. However, this brings with it the chance of Civil War as laid out in rule 6 (b).

(b). - RGBs: Recruitable generals start off in the game as independent Knights, excepting the first two as per rule 2 (a). From this position they are free to remain independent or join any of the existing Houses. Should they join an existing House and own land, they will be counted as landed vassals for the purpose of determining ranks within their House, but are unable to inherit leadership of the House. Should a Knight receive an adoption or marriage offer, they will be required to join the House of their new parents, if said parents have one. If they are already members of another House this will still carry the risk of Civil War as per Rule 6 (b).

(c) - New Houses: Any independent land owning Noble may attempt to start a new House by proposing a Codex Amendment at the Council of Nobles. Should their Codex Amendment pass, they automatically attain the rank of Duke of their new House. They may name it whatever they please. Recruitable generals who become Dukes in this manner are exempt from any requirement to join a parent's House if they are adopted or become an FM through marriage.

3. - Feudal Hierarchy

(a). - Rank Gain and Loss: All Nobles enter the game at the rank of Knight. Nobles will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a Noble ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

(b). - Gaining and Losing Provinces: All conquered provinces must be ratified by an edict, which can be passed at the session before the conquest or be applied retroactively at the first session after. If a province is not ratified in this manner by the end of the very next session after it was made, it must be given away or abandoned. While a province is not ratified taxes must be set to the highest level possible and no recruitment can be made in that settlement. Any province conquered and ratified becomes part of the King's Demesne. At the time of conquest, the conquering noble can refuse to hand the province over to the King, but this puts him in a state of Civil War with the King. The King can be prevented from giving any province in the Demesne to another Noble by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council.

The King's choice of who to give the province can be blocked by a 2/3ds majority of the Council (excluding the King himself, except as a tiebreaker). For this to happen a Duke must declare an emergency session to have the matter voted on.

At the start of the game, Zim will determine which Nobles receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per Noble. Nobles lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another Nobles, if it is conquered by an AI faction, if it is occupied by the army of a Noble who has made a Declaration of War against them, or if they break an oath of fealty (however, if a civil war results they can regain the province either in the war or through a treaty).

(c). - Retinue: At any time, a Noble may give any retinue item/member they possess to another Noble or remove it from their avatar without giving it to anyone else. If a retinue item/member cannot be transferred or removed due to game coding or distance between avatars, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal.

(d) - Wills & Inheritance: Upon the death of a noble his land goes to the highest member of his feudal chain. If he is independent the land goes to the King. All land in the King's Demesne is passed to the new King. Duke's can pass on their rank to a House member of their choosing, by naming a successor in a valid will. Wills must be PMed to Zim before the Avatar’s death to be considered valid. If a Duke dies without naming a successor, the King picks the successor from among the highest ranked Nobles in their House.

(e) - Oaths of Fealty: Any Independent Noble may swear an oath of fealty to any Noble whenever he wishes. In order to become a vassal of another Noble, a Noble 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 Noble 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 Council is in session.

(f) - Feudal Ranks: In the event of a conflict, Rule 3 (f) 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 Council Session.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot run for Chancellor.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council 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. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Council Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Baron's Duke. If the Baron is not in a House, the provinces are given to the King.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one landowning vassal. Must be a member of a House.
Influence: 1
Powers:
(1) Can propose one Edict per Council 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. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 2 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
Penalties:
(1) Loses control of all provinces if they fail to vote in two consecutive Normal Council Sessions. All provinces lost in this way are given to the Count's Duke.

Duke:
Requirements: Must be one of the beginning Dukes as per Rule 2 (a), have become Duke as per the will of a deceased Duke as per Rule 3 (d), have been given the title by a resigning duke, have attained the title of Duke by Rule 2 (c) or gained the title as part of a peace agreement at the end of a Civil War.
Influence: 1 + 1 for every Count in his House.
Powers:
(1) Can propose three Edicts or Amendments per Council 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. Can rename any settlement under their control at any time.
(3) Can call Emergency Council Sessions if another Duke seconds the call.
(4) May at any time rename their House.
(5) Cannot be banned from a Council Session.
(6) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 3 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term.
(7) Can voluntarily resign and pass on their title to any land owning Noble of their choosing.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other rank except those of Chancellor and Prince.

Prince:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction heir.
Influence: 2.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Prince are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Prince's other rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the King, the Prince can ban nobles from a Council Session. Banned Senators cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the King, the Prince can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
(4) If this rank is held during a Normal Council Session, can Prioritize a total of 1 units per full 10 turn Chancellor term. This power is cumulative with the ability to prioritize units under any other rank held by the Prince.

King:
Requirements: Must be the in-game faction leader.
Influence: equal to authority stat.
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per Council Session.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for all settlements in the King's Demesne. Can destroy any building in those settlements and can rename any of them at any time.
(3) Can call Emergency Council Sessions.
(4) Cannot be banned from a Council Session.
(5) Can prioritize 4 units per term.
(6) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(7) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(8) Decides which noble, if any, a Princess should marry.
(9) Can allocate all newly conquered land, or let it remain within the King's Demesne if he wishes.
(10) Once during his reign, the King may automatically assume the post of Chancellor for a single term. The King must declare that he is exercising that right at a Council Session; He will then be appointed Chancellor with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the King can also compete in normal Chancellor elections.
(11) Can ban Nobles from a Council Session. Banned Nobles cannot speak or propose legislations, but they are permitted to vote.
(12) Can adjudicate on edicts and amendments. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the King or the Prince, the Chancellor will be the adjudicator.
(13) Can rename the faction at any time.
(14) Can move the Capital at any time, as long as the new Capital is within the King's Demesne.

Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold any other feudal rank except that of Chancellor.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another Senator and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a King, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the Noble who is now King are instantly broken, with no penalties. The new King takes control of any provinces in the King's Demesne, as well as retaining those under his control at the time of his ascension. If he was Duke of his House, his named heir for that post attains the rank. In the absence of a named heir, the second in charge of the House becomes Duke.

Chancellor:
Requirements: Must have been elected Chancellor or attained it through declaration under King's Power (10).
Influence: For every term a noble serves as Chancellor, he gets a permanant +1 to his influence. This bonus is cumulative for nobles who serve multiple terms as Chancellor. This bonus does not apply to the King or any Chancellor who was removed by being impeached.
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the Chancellor are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the Chancellor's other rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) The Chancellor is repsonsible for all monetary expenditures in the game. The choice of what to build/recruit is entirely up to him, except as stated in the Limitations on Powers.
(3) The Chancellor can move all armies that start a turn outside a settlement and led by a captain.
(4) The Chancellor can move all fleets, unless they started the turn inside a port in the realm.
(5) The Chancellor can move and use all agents.
Limitations on powers:
(1) The Chancellor must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. The Chancellor is not required to build anything, but if he does build in a settlement, it must be the first item in the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the Chancellor may build whatever he wishes.
(2) The Chancellor must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(3) Prioritized Units - No money can be spent on any recruitment until all Prioritized Units have been funded, unless the Nobles who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Units, and not enough funding for all of them, the Chancellor may choose which to recruit first. Nobles may specify any of his settlements for the unit to be recruited from, and any unit available for hire in that settlement to be recruited. Artillery and mercenaries cannot be Prioritized. A unit may be retrained instead of recruited if the unit is already located in a settlement where it can be retrained in some fashion.
(4) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

No problems with the changes in the House rules then? I'll try to finish up the rest in the next few days and leave that open for more discussion.

4. - Government

(a) - Sessions: The Council of the Realm (Conseil du Royaume) will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. Zim or anyone delegated by him can change the length of individual sessions at will.

(b) - Proposing Legislation: During each session, Nobles may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other Nobles before they can be put to the vote.

(c) - Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the Council. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority. Edicts can only be enforced by IC means. Edicts cannot contradict the Game Rules.

(d) - Codex Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect permanently, or until repealed by another Codex Amendment. Codex Amendments can only be enforced by IC means. Codex Amendments cannot contradict the Game Rules.

(e) - Rule Changes: Rule Changes require a two-thirds majority of unweighted votes (1 vote per player) to pass. Rule Changes can permanently change the Game Rules. Any player can propose Rule Changes, regardless of IC rank. Zim can veto any proposed Rule Change, but does not vote. Game Rules are enforced by IC or OOC means, as Zim sees fit.

(f) - Influence: Each Noble’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence. No Noble's Influence may ever be lower than 1. Influence is increased permanantly by 1 if a Noble marries a Princess of the royal family and 1 for each term a noble serves as Chancellor.

(g) - War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 3 (f), any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

(h) - Elections: At each Normal Session, on the death of the Chancellor, or on the impeachment of the Chancellor, there is an election for the post of Chancellor. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age).

(i) - Impeachment: The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new Chancellor, although the King may also exercise his power to become Chancellor at that point. The Noble replacing the impeached Chancellor serves out the remainder of the impeached Chancellor's term. All Edicts passed in the Council session that elected the impeached Chancellor remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.

5. - Armies

(a) - Armies: Except as stated in Rule 5 (b), all Nobles own all army units that begin a turn in a stack led by their avatar, in the garrison of a settlement they own, and in the garrison of a fort inside a province they own, regardless of how the units got there. Nobles instantly own any Captain-led stack that their avatar moves onto. No one may move or disband any units owned by a Noble without his permission.

(b) - Seizing Armies: Any Noble may move his avatar onto an army owned by another Noble from the same feudal chain. If this occurs, the Noble with the highest feudal rank instantly owns the entire combined army. If both Nobles are of the same rank, the eldest Noble will own the entire combined army. The King may instantly seize any army his avatar moves onto, regardless of the status of the Noble that previously owned it, unless that Noble is in a state of Civil War against the King. A Noble may not move his avatar onto an army owned by a Noble from outside his feudal chain unless both Nobles agree to the move beforehand. If there is a subsequent disagreement about who owns the units in the army, where the army is to move, or who commands the army, the King will decide. This Rule does not apply to garrisons of settlements or forts. Avatars may never be seized.

(c) - Naval Fleets: All Nobles own all fleets that begin a turn in the port of a settlement they own, regardless of how the fleet got there. Otherwise, naval fleets are owned by the Noble with the highest feudal rank who is onboard the fleet. If there are multiple Nobles of the same rank, the eldest Noble will own the fleet. No one may move or disband any ships in a fleet owned by a Noble without his permission.

(d) - Historical Army Composition: An army of 10 units or less cannot have more than 3 units of heavy cavalry. An army of 11 units or more cannot have more than 5 units of heavy cavalry. For the purposes of this rule, bodyguard units do not count as heavy cavalry. Armies that do not meet these requirements cannot fight battles under any circumstances, though they can be used for transportation.


6. - Civil War

(a) - Declaration of War: A Noble must make a Declaration of War towards a specific Noble in a public thread before they can attack any of that Noble’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all Nobles of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the Noble who makes the Declaration and the Noble who is the target of the Declaration, including vassals who swear an Oath of Fealty after the Declaration of War has been made. A Declaration of War does not apply to any Nobles in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target.

(b) - Civil War through Oath Breaking: If a Vassal breaks an Oath of Fealty, anyone above him in the feudal chain may choose to instantly enter a state of Civil War. For the purposes Rule 6 (a), the Noble who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the Noble who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War.

(c) - Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all Nobles on one side are dead or all living Nobles on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. A Noble's public agreement to a Peace Treaty will also remove all Nobles below him in his feudal chain from the Civil War, unless the vassal Nobles specifically state otherwise in a public thread. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Fealty, retinue, or the title of Duke of the Noble(s) signing the Peace Treaty, it will be considered binding law. All terms of a Peace Treaty that go beyond these limits, particularly those that increase a Noble’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Council at the next normal session. Individual Nobles may unilaterally remove themselves from a Civil War within one turn of the Declaration of War that brought them into it by breaking all Oaths of Fealty that tie them to any Noble involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any Noble who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

(d) - Civil Wars on the Campaign Map: While a Civil War is in progress, all players involved in the Civil War will lose their ability to make any moves on the campaign map. On every game turn, all players involved in the Civil War will submit a PM to Zim giving movement orders for that turn. These movement orders can include up to a maximum of two of the following orders:

(1) - Gather: The player may gather units he owns that are located in the same province as his avatar, but which are not currently located in his avatar's army. All units specified in this manner will be teleported into the avatar's army.

(2) - Move: The player may move his avatar's army into any adjacent province. If a player desires to cross a body of water, Zim will determine how many Move orders are required to cross it, and whether the player can end a turn at sea.

(3) - Defend: The player fortifies his army in a specific province, providing a terrain advantage if a battle occurs in that province before the player moves again.

After the turn ends, Zim will implement all moves for players involved in the Civil War, utilizing the console. The orders will be executed simultaneously for all players, but in the sequence they were listed in the PMs (i.e. Order 1 will be implement for all players, followed by Order 2 for all players). If this movement results in a player entering a province with a hostile AI-controlled army, Zim will determine whether a battle against the AI will occur. Movement will continue in this manner until two hostile player-controlled armies enter the same province. When this occurs, a PvP Battle will begin. All PvP Battles will be considered Meeting Engagements, in which neither side has a terrain advantage, unless one of the armies was Defending the province where the battle occurred. If this happens, the defending army will get a terrain advantage in the following manner: (1) If the province is owned by the Defender, the battle will be a siege assault of the settlement. (2) If the province is not owned by the Defender, the battle map will be chosen such that a terrain advantage, such as a high mountain, fort, or bridge is given to the Defender. The Umpire of the battle will determine the precise nature of the terrain advantage.

(e) PVP Recruitment: Recruitment during Civil Wars will take place through a draft system, outlined as below.

(1) Each turn of civil war, players can prioritise recruitment (draft) one unit for every settlement they own or have conquered during the war, replacing their normal prioritizations until the next Council session (normally 10 turns).

(2) Drafts take precedence over ALL other monetary expenditures in the game and are executed by the GM when implementing combatants' move orders, recruiting by settlement in a random order, but with priority given to settlements that did not draft in the previous turn.

(3) When the civil war is over, each player must give orders to the GM to disband one full strength unit for every unit drafted during the war (the GM will umpire any unit transfer exploits designed to evade disbandment).



(f) - PvP Battles: Whenever a PvP Battle occurs, if both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with Zim or anyone he chooses acting as umpire. The umpire will determine the map and the precise composition of the armies. If the battle is not fought via multiplayer, there will be a 24 hour voting period to determine how the battle will be fought. The voting options will be (a) Tabletop Battle (b) Abbreviated Tabletop Battle and (c) AI Battle. All players may vote, even those not involved in the battle, all votes will be unweighted, and the option that receives the most votes will be chosen. Tabletop Battles will be in the style of the The Battle of the Iron Bridge and the Battle of the Basileis and will be umpired by Zim or anyone he chooses. Abbreviated Tabletop Battles will be identical to a Tabletop Battle, but will be 1 turn in length. Players will determine their starting positions and outline a general strategy for the battle. The umpire will then play out the battle and determine the victor. The umpire may allow a maximum of 1 or 2 additional turns beyond the starting turn if they so choose. The Abbreviated Tabletop Battle will be run by Zim or anyone he chooses. AI Battles will be custom battles in the TW engine in which the AI will control all units on both sides. AI battles will be umpired by Zim or anyone he choose. The umpire will determine all settings to be used in the battle, including the map and the precise composition of the armies. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire must attempt to have the battle replicate the in-game state of affairs to the best of his ability. Regardless of the type of battle chosen, the umpire will determine the results, including, but not limited to, units to be disbanded as casualties, avatars to be killed off as casualties, and changes in the control of provinces. Console commands may be used to implement the results.

So...no problems with the rules?

I'd definitely play with those rules. Seems a good reflection of what was discussed towards the end of LotR.

Thanks, that's what I was going for. :yes:

What about the prioritized units for more ranks than just the House leaders? I thought it would reflect how decentralized militaries were in a feudal system, and give players a little extra something to call their own in this slightly more House-centric rule system.

n the other hand, would it be too much of a pain for the Chancellor?

Here's something I didn't consider at all that TinCow posted in the old discussion thread. He had mentioned the vast majority of players never made it past 1 influence and that the influence rules didn't seem to impact the game much.

Quote:

---

Based on what I saw in LotR, I think it might actively be good to completely abolish stat-based Influence. Just give everyone one vote and be done with it.

---

I editted the rules a bit, adding to the will section (mainly just that Dukes choose their successors in their will), and cleared up a few thing in the ranks so that it was clear that to hold the rank of Count one had to be a member of a House and that Dukes couldn't hold another rank in addition to the rank of Duke, excepting that of Chancellor or Prince.

Can Counts create Houses? But without the legitimacy of the "First Four"? Can a Duke utterly disown his own House and provide said legitimacy to the upstart Count led House?

If so - fun times indeed :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Here's something I didn't consider at all that TinCow posted in the old discussion thread. He had mentioned the vast majority of players never made it past 1 influence and that the influence rules didn't seem to impact the game much.

---

I think this is a good idea. It simplifies things for the purposes of record-keeping and makes pre-election vote counting easier for people who are trying to push through (or block) legislation. At the same time, I didn't feel like the stat-based influence really had any impact on role-playing, which is the most important part of the game.

What DID have an impact was influence earned by player actions. This was most notable in the bonuses for the Ex-Megas and for people who managed to marry a Princess. I think that it would work well to give everyone a base vote of 1, and only allow additional influence beyond that due to similar in-game actions. Other options along these lines that could be explored:

1) Influence granted by the consent of the Senate, such as a 'triumph' for a great military victory or some other significant achievement.
2) Influence granted to someone who has won a PvP battle.

I also think your truncated rank system is a big improvement. LotR ended up having too many ranks and it was too difficult to reach the highest ranks. Reaching a high rank should be hard, but not impossible which is how it turned out in LotR. I think your system will work better.

I like the rules.

I like anything that is codified as game rules that refer to actions and things that can use the game engine to easily manage.

Also things that are simple.

As it currently stands if a Count successfully became independent they would go down to Baron status until they managed to convince the Council to vote into creation their new House. They'd be free to create a defacto House, but would be blocked off from the higher ranks until their House gained legitamacy.

I had done that to make the Houses more stable in that one would need to join one to gain access to the higher ranks. Maybe that's going too far?

In your scenario is the Duke dropping his own House to rule the new one? Or dropping his rank to bestow it on the Count? The former is easy enough but I hadn't even considered the latter. I can see a Duke losing their title as part of a peace agreement in a Civil War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Can Counts create Houses? But without the legitimacy of the "First Four"? Can a Duke utterly disown his own House and provide said legitimacy to the upstart Count led House?

If so - fun times indeed :yes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

As it currently stands if a Count successfully became independent they would go down to Baron status until they managed to convince the Council to vote into creation their new House. They'd be free to create a defacto House, but would be blocked off from the higher ranks until their House gained legitamacy.

I had done that to make the Houses more stable in that one would need to join one to gain access to the higher ranks. Maybe that's going too far?

In your scenario is the Duke dropping his own House to rule the new one? Or dropping his rank to bestow it on the Count? The former is easy enough but I hadn't even considered the latter. I can see a Duke losing their title as part of a peace agreement in a Civil War.

---

The idea is that a Count fights for his right to have a House, but he isn't as strong, but he isn't subjected to the whims of the First Four.

The second part is the idea that a Duke could disown his own House in favor of another, such as said Count above, for his own reasons - thus stripping one of the First Four of it's legitimacy, and granting it to the Counts House, who is now a Duke. This would allow for a dynamic change in the Houses and for some interesting storyline. This would of course be a part of the Dukes will, so death or retirement must come first.

Also, yes, that was also implied - what if a Count defeated a Duke and demanded the title for peace?

I know I didn't pay much attention to stat influence, don't think I ever qualified for more than one until I became Megas. :clown:

It would simplify things greatly as long as the list of ways to gain influence was kept fairly small. The influence from marrying a Princess and ex-Megas/Chancellor ones you mentioned from LotR are a good start. I wonder if the Prince should get a boost if he marries a foreign princess..

Should Princes get 1 extra influence?

The Triumph idea is neat. I wonder if there's something similiar that would fit in with the likely more western faction I suspect will be picked...

I really like the idea of some kind of influence reward for successful pvp/civil wars. I would be at least partly concerned about an automatic +1 influence for winning a battle. If a Civil war went back and forth a fair deal that could be a lot of battles. Then again, that hasn't happened yet in two games (I guess the Swabian Civil War had the greatest number of battles, although the War of the Basileis had the potential for more). Do you think that would be an issue?

What do you think of the number of ranks? As it stands except for Duke the ranks listed are pretty easy to attain (A House that managed to get 5 people counting the Duke could have two counts), but I did want to make it fewer than LOTR. I've been thinking over whether one more might be appropriate. Definitely not any more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I think this is a good idea. It simplifies things for the purposes of record-keeping and makes pre-election vote counting easier for people who are trying to push through (or block) legislation. At the same time, I didn't feel like the stat-based influence really had any impact on role-playing, which is the most important part of the game.

What DID have an impact was influence earned by player actions. This was most notable in the bonuses for the Ex-Megas and for people who managed to marry a Princess. I think that it would work well to give everyone a base vote of 1, and only allow additional influence beyond that due to similar in-game actions. Other options along these lines that could be explored:

1) Influence granted by the consent of the Senate, such as a 'triumph' for a great military victory or some other significant achievement.
2) Influence granted to someone who has won a PvP battle.

I also think your truncated rank system is a big improvement. LotR ended up having too many ranks and it was too difficult to reach the highest ranks. Reaching a high rank should be hard, but not impossible which is how it turned out in LotR. I think your system will work better.

---

Well, as it stands a Count could fight to leave a House and even form a defacto House of new members or fellow deserters, but would lose access to the higher ranks (busted down to Baron).

So said Duke would be giving his title of Duke to the Count? If he dies he can make anybody he wants his heir. I'd be interested in hearing whether people think Dukes should be able to "retire" while still alive and give his title to another.

I definitely think an addition to the rules should be made to allow losing the title through civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

The idea is that a Count fights for his right to have a House, but he isn't as strong, but he isn't subjected to the whims of the First Four.

The second part is the idea that a Duke could disown his own House in favor of another, such as said Count above, for his own reasons - thus stripping one of the First Four of it's legitimacy, and granting it to the Counts House, who is now a Duke. This would allow for a dynamic change in the Houses and for some interesting storyline. This would of course be a part of the Dukes will, so death or retirement must come first.

Also, yes, that was also implied - what if a Count defeated a Duke and demanded the title for peace?

---

Hmmm...you mentioned another rank as a possibility...maybe we should have a rank that a King can bestow, that adds power and prestige to a House, or some other function, that another House would want, creating friction through sucking up and power gain? I keep thinking Archduke or Master of Arms as possible titles.

That might not be a bad idea, although we should take care to keep things from getting too complicated. Maybe the Mast of Arms to lead the King's army (on that note I don't think I gave the king any prioritized units, better fix that).

I'm not trying to be rude here,

but,

I think everyone should just stop talking about more rules. :egypt:

Just play the damn game and if you want more rules, then do it "In Character" as part of the frame work already created. :balloon2:

That was nearly the single most effect aspect of KotR.

-EDIT- The "egypt" and "balloon" is to ensure those of you that know me well enough realise this is a bit of friendly slapping.

Would you say that the rules are properly balanced right now then? With no rank needed between Duke and Count?

As it is I'd be perfectly happy just making a few minor adjustment before finishing up everything we need to start the game. The main last few changes I'm considering are:

1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King, something I just forgot writing up that rank.
3. "Possibly" scrapping the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Would you say that the rules are properly balanced right now then? With no rank needed between Duke and Count?

As it is I'd be perfectly happy just making a few minor adjustment before finishing up everything we need to start the game. The main last few changes I'm considering are:

1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King, something I just forgot writing up that rank.
3. "Possibly" scrapping the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence.

---

Sounds fine to me - a Master of Arms title should be something we should fight over ingame, not pregame I suppose.

and AG, does this mean your in?

Upon a quick read, I like what I see, and I'm in favor of there being fewer ranks as opposed to more. Even the highest-attaining players in LotR couldn't sniff Exarch.

Did you not like the idea to limit expansion and strengthen the legislative body by requring "annexation" votes, which is that each conquered province has to be annexed by an Edict or given back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyd

Did you not like the idea to limit expansion and strengthen the legislative body by requring "annexation" votes, which is that each conquered province has to be annexed by an Edict or given back?

---

Could you elaborate on the overall amount of steps for this? To me it sounds as if your saying that each province captured is only captured until the next Chancellor phase unless it is ratified in - considering the King himself gets the provinces this game and then doles them out how he sees fit, that might curb expansion by Houses that do not share good feelings with the King, while allowing another House to literally explode overnight.

That's what happened in KOTR, isn't it? How did it work out?

I joined during the Cataclysm, and then in the period after there was an edict for me and OK to take back Outremer so I never really had to chance to run up on limits on taking territory...

I think limiting expansion is vital. If we get too big too quickly, then we end up with what happened to LotR - there was simply too much wealth and land to go around. Hence no one really bothered to pick a fight, because there was more to lose than to gain from doing so.

Also, I say we try and get some newer players to the series to be the King and Prince. It helps get them into the game more. And we should advertise around for players soon, if we want a good number.

Thing is, we don't want someone who will just disappear from the game after a few turns.

If everyone's ok with it I could add that requirement for an edict for annexation.

As far a who gets the beginning fms, I was thinking of giving some of them to players who made it to/near the end of LOTR but hadn't gotten to play the Basileus, Caesar, or a House leader, if nobody objects.

The requirement of an edict for annexation sounds good.

I'm wondering at the moment, how many players are we aiming for?

For the very beginning of the game I don't expect a ton of players (although the response has been greater than I anticipated :yes:). In the long term, I'd be very happy if we had 10-14 players or so at most times. Of course, the more the better.

Just did a rules update.

Changes:

1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King.
3. Scrapped the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, Prince, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence. Also I specifically weakened Ducal influence a little by changing it to 1+1 for every Count in their House rather than every vassal. I want the Dukes to be powerful but not thought 1 influence for every landed noble might be a bit much, unless Houses are very small...
4. Set an edict requirement for keeping conquered provinces.

Also, TinCow and I have been talking about new House creation and came upon the idea of maybe having Kings be allowed to create new Dukes and Houses, with the possibility of being blocked by a 2/3ds majority of the Council. I think there'd be some limit, one per term, or maybe even rarer to prevent the position from being spammed. I could also keep to the 50% majority that can currently create a House, or up that to a 2/3rds.

What does everyone think of that and the changes made thus far?

It's pretty good, except I think that being a family member should be a requirement for the formation of a new house. Houses represent the major nobility, and historically most of them were blood-related to the current king.

Other than that they're great!

Also, if possible, try to make the number of unchangeable rules as small as possible. That way most ammendments can be dealt in an IC fashion, avoiding personal disputes and animosities.

well, iif ur playing an RGB, your options are limited then...

Everyone is going to want a FM.

I'm not too keen on two ideas posted here :

1 - Edict for annexation : while I understand the concern for fast expansion, I don't like the idea of having to battle in the Senate (or Council or whatever it will be called) to keep a Province in the bosom of the Empire. It makes no sense historically. Powerful vassals (and sometimes even less powerful ones) ignored the will of their King and conquered/annexed provinces for their own gain, often requiring military pressure of their Lord to release them and not some court order...

2 - Possibility for FM only to create new Houses. With the limits and caps set by Zim rules, I don't think we'll see new Houses appear overnight so restricting the possibility of creating them to FM might be just a touch too much and might deter people who have had access to a RGB only from grasping power into their own hands.

Otherwise, I think it is a fine set of Rules and I particularly like the way Influence is planned as is. My main fear is that if a power blocks forms, it could enact Edicts/CA granting Influence from particular causes benefiting their numbers thus raising their power even more (I haven't decided yet if this is rather good or bad...)

Perhaps we can fix the expansion problem by allowing nobles to keep the provinces they conquer, but make it very hard to defend them without the king's support. But that should probably be an IC game action.

In my mind, requiring an edict to annex a province and the king acquiring all conquered provinces seems contradictory.

I'd prefer a system where the province was acquired by the conquering noble, but required annexation through an edict for legitimacy - until it is annexed, the chancellor does not have to fulfill any prioritization that deal with the province. You still have to be a kiss :daisy: but there is more freedom involved.

Great idea, YLC!

so a noble conquers a province, and it is his after the annexation is approved.
What happens if the annexation is not approved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mini

so a noble conquers a province, and it is his after the annexation is approved.
What happens if the annexation is not approved?

---

Oh no, it's his period if he conquers it - but until he gets approval for it in the Council, the Chancellor can freely ignore the entire province, including taxes, prioritization, building queues, etc, without penalty.

This makes it difficult to hold onto - it cannot be properly reinforced except from within the kingdom/empire, is subject to higher levels of revolt and generates less income.

One of the most balanced aspects of KotR was that all expansion needed to be legislated through the Diet. Meaning edicts to attack and a second CA (or was it another edict) to ratify the province and absorb it into the Kingdom was required.

This prevented players who are good at the game from literally tearing across the map. It also politicised land and made the politics about acquisition and allocation of land very interesting and very significant. This by extension focused everyone very squarely on the Diet sessions and what was going on in them. A complaint of the last game I believe was a lack of focus in the political threads.

I can't emphasis enough just how important land is to a feudal empire and how the game supports this in so many ways. The Diet was THE MAIN platform in KotR and it was hugely entertaining because it really meant something to go into that Thread and present your case, argue, threaten and bribe your way to success.

The second aspect of this concept was all land, once ratified, went to the King, who then allocated it to a House/Duke who then kept it himself or allocated it to one of his nobles. Again hugely appropriate both in the game and historically. The Kings position in this critical aspect of power countered the extreme executive but transient power of the Chancellor and made the King an ongoing important figure for people to constantly be forced to deal with. As a nice tie in, the Prince would one day be King so playing ahead of the succession tree was always another sub level of politics. Duke's by extension were allocated this power base to use as they see fit. At that point the land issuance was finished.

I strongly recommend this system is replicated, in a simple, effective and easy to understand format.

I think my idea replicates it well enough - you can't go on a conquering spree in the first place because conquered provinces would revolt one right after another or become very vulnerable to attack, while still allowing people to do something. IMO, requiring double legislation to conquer a province is cumbersome. This one still allows for a lot more freedom on politics as well.

The annexations rules are probably the ones I'm the most unsure of. As mentioned, I never really had much experience with having to push annexation edicts through in KOTR. I'm glad AG spoke up as someone with experience with it am curious how the debate goes.

I do want something to limit expansion as it seemed to get a little out of control in parts of LOTR. How we do so isn't a big deal to me so any further suggestions for alternate systems are welcome. :yes:

I do think it's a good thing to have conquered land go to the king before being dispensed to Houses. When it comes down to it it's the only power he has that really forces nobles to deal with him.

I should note that at the moment separate edicts to conquer and ratify annexation are not required as per KOTR, only a single annexation edict made before or after the conquest.

Of course, sooner or late a noble told to abandon his conquest or give it to a rival might say "over my dead body", a situation I would liekly let get resolved in-game rather than through gm fiat... :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

The annexations rules are probably the ones I'm the most unsure of. As mentioned, I never really had much experience with having to push annexation edicts through in KOTR. I'm glad AG spoke up as someone with experience with it am curious how the debate goes.

I do want something to limit expansion as it seemed to get a little out of control in parts of LOTR. How we do so isn't a big deal to me so any further suggestions for alternate systems are welcome. :yes:

I do think it's a good thing to have conquered land go to the king before being dispensed to Houses. When it comes down to it it's the only power he has that really forces nobles to deal with him.

I should note that at the moment separate edicts to conquer and ratify annexation are not required as per KOTR, only a single annexation edict made before or after the conquest.

Of course, sooner or late a noble told to abandon his conquest or give it to a rival might say "over my dead body", a situation I would liekly let get resolved in-game rather than through gm fiat... :juggle2:

---

Hmmm...I think I have an idea, although it might be construed as more complex.

We want people to take personal initiative, and disobedience should be an open option.
We want to limit expansion at the sametime.
We want to give the king some form of power.

So I propose we blend them together. by allowing anyone to conquer any province they see fit. however, taxes must be set to high until and the province can be ignored by the Chancellor, until the said conqueror hands the province over to Royal authority or an edict is passed with 2/3rds majority that annexes the territory.

Thoughts?

Posted the final mod poll thread. It appears we will be playing France, and 90% likely that we will be using the Kingdoms version of whichever mod we pick. :yes:

The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.

I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?

I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.

I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?

I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.

---

That was one of my main issues with my idea - the Chancellor seems to be able to just simply ignore the rule, so why not change it to the Chancellor can't do ANYTHING with the province besides send troops/agents into it under his control? And the province has taxes set to high, or very high?

*bump*

I've seen several requests for my input in this thread. Apologies, but I'm out of town on business this entire week. I have internet access, but don't really have time to do much more than skim the forums. I will be happy to respond, but you'll have to wait until next weekend or early next week.

Any more opinions on the issue at hand? I admit at the moment I am still leaning towards the system currently in place in the rules over YLC's somewhat more complicated system.

Does anyone else prefer the latter, or just generally dislike the idea of either type of limit on annexation?

maybe the conquered province shouldnt be given to the king obligatory...

More a kind of unwritten tradition. Another tradition is the handing back of the province by the king.

So, a duke may not give the city to the king. The king may now force the surrounding dukes upon this renegade and put pressure.

or a duke hands over the city, but the king just gives it to another house. The conquering house is pissed, and will not hand over the next conquered city, and will plot some kind of revenge against both king and the other house who got th city by buttkissing with the king.


Could lead to various interesting plots, intrigues and civil wars :p

I say that in civil wars the duke gets to keep the province, otherwise the king gets to dictate who owns it. If you don't like it, say so with your sword.

To refine my rule further, when a noble conquers a province -

He can keep it, but cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, until:
A) He hands the province over to the King, who then does with it as he sees fit.
B) He gains 2/3rds support from the Council to ratify his sovereignty over the province.

I think it's actually a good idea to have a very basic set of rules for things like this, and then develop it in-game.

Maybe it's good to say that a noble can conquer a province, but like YLC said he cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, unless he hands it over to the king or rebels.

That way, he is actually creating a burden for himself. It also doesn't invalidate the worth of the king, as getting his approval will be vital to legitimately utilising that province. If you don't, you may have to throw off the king's authority and try and force an agreement.

I think that the game is served best by short sharp civil wars which result in a decisive battle, and then an agreement is made between winner and loser. This set-up should encourage that.

YLC's ideas intrigues me. It gives players more freedom in a way that is sure to provoke intrigue. I specifically like how it sets up conflict between the King and the Council. I quite like it.

On another note, I still like the idea of an 'Archduke' rank or somesuch. It's be a nice way for a Duke to gain enough power to rival the King, which should lead to interesting drama. Perhaps if two of the starting Duchies where unified under one man?

Speaking of which, it's possible for two Duchies to have a 'personal union', isn't it?

There's certainly nothing preventing one Duke from swearing fealty to another. I'd like to see any new ranks appear out of in game conflicts. Say, for example, a despotic king becomes so unpopular the Council creates the rank of Archduke as a counter.

That said, if everyone wants me to I can create a new rank easily enough.

One thing about YLC's proposal is that if you have 2/3ds of the votes of the Council on your side, you could just create a rule change making an exception of your settlement...

At any rate it isn't unbalanced. A King with decent authority and any support at all among one or more Houses would have a good chance of blocking the Council vote method. One lacking both might very well deserve the Council going over his head.

Let's keep the discussion open to refine the ideas proposed thus far. Once TinCow returns from vacation we can get his opinion as an experienced gm and look at having a forum created for the game and getting started. :yes:

One issue I've been thinking about is piicking who gets the starting characters and, if in the chosen mod France doesn't start with enough fms, who gets the RGBs lucky enough to be Dukes. I could just assign the starting characters, or we could go with something like LOTR where those with the most votes in the previous game choose first. Alternatively, we could come up with some kind of method for randomizing...

After the mod is identified as the winner, I would suggest identifying what's available, identify who is in, and if they want to come in right away or would be willing to wait. Then you can determine who gets what at the start. Random seems fair and the people signing up are for the most part going to be established players from previous games. My $.02

It's also worth noting that LTC Gold has three possible starting dates, like the first MTW. I know for a fact that the 'Early' period France starts with five generals.

I have to mention that reading the Diet sessions from KotR is pretty entertaining.

Diet Session V in which the reunification event is the main topic, is what these games are all about.

Worth a read from about page 12 onwards.

I love how the very first post on that page has the following:

Quote:

---

It seems the "highway of death heads" has not had the desired effect.

---

All in a matter-of-fact tone too. :laugh4:

Heh, good times.

This may be slightly OOC, but I've been thinking about things that made LOTR different from KOTR. Many have been discussed, but as far as I remember one aspect that hasn't been talked about as much is the change in policy regarding avatar acquisition.

In this, KOTR (at first) and LOTR were at opposite extremes. In KOTR you had to take what the game offered, and if it wasn't offering anything you had to wait. In LOTR you could not only get an avatar at any time, you could even get options!

If those were the only two options, I think I'd prefer the former. For most of KOTR, every Elector who joined the Reich started off linked to certain people and a certain House. That was a foundation upon which to build other relations, which were, of course, what made KOTR so great. I think LOTR suffered a bit from having people able to get RGBs whenever they want. When there's no restriction on getting Avatars, the avatar you have doesn't mean as much. A lot of avatars in LOTR were just abandoned, either by people who stopped playing or people who wanted to start fresh with a new avatar. I don't think this reflects poorly on the players themselves (at least I hope not, since I myself belong to the latter group), but I do think it reveals a flaw in the incentives the rules gave the players. The avatar situation needs to be more orderly and still.

I think a middle path is best. At the very least, if a someone want to play as an RGB he should have to take the first one that pops up. There some be some limit to the availability of avatars in order for them to be seen as valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Heh, good times.

This may be slightly OOC, but I've been thinking about things that made LOTR different from KOTR. Many have been discussed, but as far as I remember one aspect that hasn't been talked about as much is the change in policy regarding avatar acquisition.

In this, KOTR (at first) and LOTR were at opposite extremes. In KOTR you had to take what the game offered, and if it wasn't offering anything you had to wait. In LOTR you could not only get an avatar at any time, you could even get options!

If those were the only two options, I think I'd prefer the former. For most of KOTR, every Elector who joined the Reich started off linked to certain people and a certain House. That was a foundation upon which to build other relations, which were, of course, what made KOTR so great. I think LOTR suffered a bit from having people able to get RGBs whenever they want. When there's no restriction on getting Avatars, the avatar you have doesn't mean as much. A lot of avatars in LOTR were just abandoned, either by people who stopped playing or people who wanted to start fresh with a new avatar. I don't think this reflects poorly on the players themselves (at least I hope not, since I myself belong to the latter group), but I do think it reveals a flaw in the incentives the rules gave the players. The avatar situation needs to be more orderly and still.

I think a middle path is best. At the very least, if a someone want to play as an RGB he should have to take the first one that pops up. There some be some limit to the availability of avatars in order for them to be seen as valuable.

---

We could have a requirement - one must pass an edict to recruit avatars. I am thinking limiting it to one per session, so there isn't a terrible issue with shortage. Once the family true becomes large enough, then I don;t think we will have to spawn any avatars.

I do not think that the larger availability of avatars in LotR was the cause of the difference in involvement of the players.

However, the fact that you could just drop your avatar because you got fed up with it or reached its RP limits (YLC :wink:) was the main difference.

From what I saw of KotR while I was following on the sidelines (before joining), the avatars seemed to last forever, whatever they had to confront, and when one got killed it was generally either traumatic or cataclysmic...

In LotR, after a time, it was difficult to interact with some characters because you couldn't know if they'll be still there come next turn and not through some bad turn of luck but because of players' lack of interest in them...

One requirement we could enforce on players wanting to play a RGB avatar would be to post a short story depicting their avatar' s former history, ambition, etc... fleshing it out...

I remember that the story I wrote for Hugo in KotR or Methodios in LotR endeared them to me and made me want to have them live forever whatever stood in their way...

Had they died early, I'm not even sure I could have jumped back into the game immediately as has been proven by my lackluster play of Georgios Angelos...

I think Cecil is onto something.

I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.

Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.

I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.

I think that would be an ideal situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I think Cecil is onto something.

I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.

Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.

I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.

I think that would be an ideal situation.

---

Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.

---

Like this?

That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.

I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Like this?

That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.

I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.

---

Yes, that's what I mean - if I can do that, then I am absolutely positively for it. It will attach you to the character even more and create a grander background then even KOTR!

And I've gotten better at the whole PBM mindset, I believe - had LotR not ended so quickly, Helarionas would have developed into a fine character I believe.

You guys really want to do away with/limit rgbs? I can do it although it will likely mean about half the people that have expressed interest thus far would have to wait on an avatar.

I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game. I think we're about ready to get everything together to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

You guys really want to do away with/limit rgbs? I can do it although it will likely mean about half the people that have expressed interest thus far would have to wait on an avatar.

I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game.

---

It's okay to limit them, but freely given you have less of a connection with them. Just a thought, we could "create" our own field promotions instead of relying on the randomness of the AI for them, and they could also be "sponsored" - not sure how that would work precisely, but it would get you in and rolling with a House and army fairly quickly, but with the obvious setback of being very limited in upwards mobility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game. I think we're about ready to get everything together to start.

---

From what I know, in terms of this game's location on the .Org, I think it's likely that this LotR forum will just be renamed to the abbreviation of whatever we decide this game's name is.

I'll also take a closer look at the rules in the meantime, as I haven't really gone over them in-depth yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

From what I know, in terms of this game's location on the .Org, I think it's likely that this LotR forum will just be renamed to the abbreviation of whatever we decide this game's name is.

I'll also take a closer look at the rules in the meantime, as I haven't really gone over them in-depth yet.

---

I am back and will read through this thread and respond more fully later this evening. However, on the subforum question, GH is correct. This forum will be renamed. I had previously some other TR house-cleaning, including closing the TVS forum, but the forum implosion got in the way and Tosa has been busy since then. Once the name is decided upon, I'll put in another request to rename this forum and get the whole TR cleaned up properly.

Note, I am reading the rules as they are posted at the moment, which I gather includes updates. However, I am responding to all comments I see which may include some what have since become irrelevant due to rule changes. Thus, disregard anything that is now moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Should Princes get 1 extra influence?

---

Princes already get a bonus to influence since their influence is on top of their normal rank influence. Remember that when determining balance.

Quote:

---

I really like the idea of some kind of influence reward for successful pvp/civil wars. I would be at least partly concerned about an automatic +1 influence for winning a battle. If a Civil war went back and forth a fair deal that could be a lot of battles. Then again, that hasn't happened yet in two games (I guess the Swabian Civil War had the greatest number of battles, although the War of the Basileis had the potential for more). Do you think that would be an issue?

---

In hindsight, probably best to keep the rules simple and not put this in at the moment. If someone wins a civil war and something like this is felt to be warranted by the players at that time, it can always be added in with a rule change.

Quote:

---

What do you think of the number of ranks? As it stands except for Duke the ranks listed are pretty easy to attain (A House that managed to get 5 people counting the Duke could have two counts), but I did want to make it fewer than LOTR. I've been thinking over whether one more might be appropriate. Definitely not any more than that.

---

I like the number of ranks the way they are. Simple and stable. It's also easy to add more in later if they are found to be needed. Focus on getting the basic solid, the frills can be added in once it is found to be working well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Hmmm...you mentioned another rank as a possibility...maybe we should have a rank that a King can bestow, that adds power and prestige to a House, or some other function, that another House would want, creating friction through sucking up and power gain? I keep thinking Archduke or Master of Arms as possible titles.

---

I think this would be best added in with a Rule Change if/when it is found to be needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

I think limiting expansion is vital. If we get too big too quickly, then we end up with what happened to LotR - there was simply too much wealth and land to go around. Hence no one really bothered to pick a fight, because there was more to lose than to gain from doing so.

---

I agree completely. Internal interaction and competition is where the fun comes from, competition against the AI is always secondary to this. Gaining power should thus be focused mainly on internal politicking, with the wars with the AI being only an after-thought (since we're bound to win them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Also, if possible, try to make the number of unchangeable rules as small as possible. That way most ammendments can be dealt in an IC fashion, avoiding personal disputes and animosities.

---

The old WOTS/KOTR system of * marked rules that couldnt be changed was done away with halfway through LotR. Zim's current system allows any rule to be changed, which I agree is how it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I'm not too keen on two ideas posted here :

1 - Edict for annexation : while I understand the concern for fast expansion, I don't like the idea of having to battle in the Senate (or Council or whatever it will be called) to keep a Province in the bosom of the Empire. It makes no sense historically. Powerful vassals (and sometimes even less powerful ones) ignored the will of their King and conquered/annexed provinces for their own gain, often requiring military pressure of their Lord to release them and not some court order...

---

I see this is a balance between realism and gameplay. The simple fact is it is easy to conquer province, and easy expansion makes the game less enjoyable IMO. Thus, it would be best to require the conquest of provinces to not only necessitate military prowess, but also a run through the internal political system as well. If the players constantly stop a certain House or Houses from expanding, that makes for good RP conflicts.

Quote:

---

2 - Possibility for FM only to create new Houses. With the limits and caps set by Zim rules, I don't think we'll see new Houses appear overnight so restricting the possibility of creating them to FM might be just a touch too much and might deter people who have had access to a RGB only from grasping power into their own hands.

---

I'll discuss this below with comments on RBGs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Oh no, it's his period if he conquers it - but until he gets approval for it in the Council, the Chancellor can freely ignore the entire province, including taxes, prioritization, building queues, etc, without penalty.

This makes it difficult to hold onto - it cannot be properly reinforced except from within the kingdom/empire, is subject to higher levels of revolt and generates less income.

---

Despite my statements above, this is an interesting idea. A hostile Chancellor could pump the taxes to Very High and make it hard to hold onto. A friendly Chancellor could make it easy to hold on to an 'illegal' province. I'm not sure whether this is the best way to go or not, but it's worth more discussion. I will think on it more before commenting further.

Two final issues which I will address in greater detail later (have to run at the moment and can't finish this post in detail):

1) RBGs - I am in favor of allowing RBGs. I generally feel the same way I did at the start of LotR. Refer to my comments on the subject in the next-gen rules thread for more insight before I can finish this train of thought.

2) Civil Wars - These need a functional overhaul. In LotR most Civil Wars lasted for years with no fighting. The system needs to be changed to that wars result in battles quickly and a resolved within a short period of time. This will make civil war far more serious of a threat than it was in LotR, where it was something of a joke for most of the game. Civil Wars needs to result in battles every single time, unless one side surrenders. My suggestion in brief is that both sides get 1 turn to assemble their allies and forces, then they are all tossed into a PvP battle (or battles) as the GM sees fit, regardless of where the avatars are on the in-game map.

On the RBG issue, here are my old comments on the issue after KOTR was over:

Quote:

---

First, while it was nice to have a ‘family tree’ of avatars with each group descended from one of Heinrich’s four children, it turned out to be far more of a pain than it was worth IMO. Some people had to wait several months just get their first avatar and we suffered serious problems with supplying people with avatars in their desired Houses for most of the game. There were also some major problems with unbalanced Houses, since the game did not spawn avatars equally amongst our four custom-made divisions. The only positive side of maintaining the family tree was having it look nice in the Library. That seems like a small benefit to me, considering the major inconveniences.

We have already concluded long ago that allowing recruitable generals is a good thing. By scrapping any formal House system, we also eliminate the risk that the adoption of a recruitable general will screw up the family tree. If the position on the family tree has no real purpose other than for role-playing, it won’t create any major problems if the general is added on in the wrong spot.

---

IMO, all of the above remains true. I do not doubt that AG valued Arnold a lot more once he got his hands on him because of the wait required for the avatar. However my recollection of KOTR is that there weren't many people who reacted in the same way. As far as I remember, most people simply found it annoying to have to wait and did not like being unable to pick which House they could join. If you need any more proof about how unpopular it was, keep in mind that in KotR we actually enabled RBGs about 2/3 of the way through the game. This was not a LotR-only thing.

I think the current trend towards reminiscing about the old system is more due to the inability of many people to get into their LotR characters. I think the RBGs are getting slandered by these legitimate complaints when I think LotR's failures were in other areas. I strongly urge that RBGs be kept, though I do support the idea of making it more difficult to leave a House once you join one. Not using RBGs would be particularly bad if we also use a system that restricts expansion. The game spawns avatars based on the number of provinces controlled by the faction. If we achieve our goal of limiting expansion, there will be almost no new faction member spawns which will essentially wreck the game by leaving it depopulated.

Well I'm in total legal negotiation mode right now. :balloon2:

If we go with RGB's then I would reiterate the massive significance of how the KotR system handled land, its acquisition and its distribution.

To quote TC:

*** I agree completely. Internal interaction and competition is where the fun comes from, competition against the AI is always secondary to this. Gaining power should thus be focused mainly on internal politicking, with the wars with the AI being only an after-thought (since we're bound to win them).

*** I see this is a balance between realism and gameplay. The simple fact is it is easy to conquer province, and easy expansion makes the game less enjoyable IMO. Thus, it would be best to require the conquest of provinces to not only necessitate military prowess, but also a run through the internal political system as well. If the players constantly stop a certain House or Houses from expanding, that makes for good RP conflicts.

The way it functioned in KotR was very impressive in my view.

And finally, the rule set should be kept as basic as possible and be structured that we find in the first instance an IC solution and in the second instance, another IC solution and then perhaps finally an OOC rule change. Make the formulation and rule set part of the legislation process, which is essentially what we are all doing as nobles of a Empire.

in this vein, ranks should be short, simple and few. If we need more then lets IC the thing. That in itself creates interest and action.

The KotR system was simple: the Emperor gets the provinces and hands them out as he pleases, though once given to a House they cannot be taken back without war. This worked fine in the game, though I do recall the people playing the Kaiser handing them out rather evenly instead of exploiting the system for partisan benefits. Since paritsan play by the King may be more likely in the new game (it was specifically stated in the KotR rules that it should not occur there), it makes sense to allow for an alternate route around the King. This fits historically as well, since the French Kings were pretty weak in 1080 AD and took a long time to consolidate their power. The simplest solution is to allow a 'Council of Nobles' vote to override the King. If the King allocates a province and a Duke protests this allocation, a Council of Nobles vote is called and can veto the allocation by a 2/3 vote. The Nobles can't pick WHO gets the provinces, but they can block it until the King gives it to someone they approve of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

The KotR system was simple: the Emperor gets the provinces and hands them out as he pleases, though once given to a House they cannot be taken back without war. This worked fine in the game, though I do recall the people playing the Kaiser handing them out rather evenly instead of exploiting the system for partisan benefits. Since paritsan play by the King may be more likely in the new game (it was specifically stated in the KotR rules that it should not occur there), it makes sense to allow for an alternate route around the King. This fits historically as well, since the French Kings were pretty weak in 1080 AD and took a long time to consolidate their power. The simplest solution is to allow a 'Council of Nobles' vote to override the King. If the King allocates a province and a Duke protests this allocation, a Council of Nobles vote is called and can veto the allocation by a 2/3 vote. The Nobles can't pick WHO gets the provinces, but they can block it until the King gives it to someone they approve of.

---

Which is essentially my suggestion, although the province immediately goes to the conquer instead of the King in my suggestion, and mine increases the Chancellors power - however, this may make for a more heated debate as to whom gets elected, and if at any point the King is the Chancellor, then the situation becomes pretty hopeless.

About that has been said recently, in a nutshell:

RGBs: I completely agree with TC, I'd rather not make players wait for the game to spawn avatars. Interacting purely in the senate for a few terms takes a great deal of dedication. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on people ditching their avatar (through carelessness or because they simply want to change) getting another one immediately after. Just a thought.

As far as new players going inactive, I think that stems mostly from feeling out of the loop. In my opinion it is up to the players in positions of power and importance to involve these new players.

Edicts for annexations: I'm partial to TC's proposition, mostly because even though I liked YLC's idea, I don't think the chancellor needs more power. I also feel its more simple to implement. YLC's idea would mean tracking which provinces are legit, which are not.

Civil Wars: I agree we need to avoid another War of Words. I liked the civil war event which ended LotR, a sort of special campaign mode for Civil War. Would this be too complicated to be used in every civil wars? If so, than the next best thing IMO is what TC proposed. How would the terrain of battle be picked? The side who has the avatar with most command stars could possibly chose the terrain of battle, representing a better strategist?

I'll likely go with the simpler annexation rules for now...

RE:Civil Wars, I kind of like being able to hold ground (like a bridge) or settlements but hated the War or Words. While I don't think things would be quite as bad here (the Basileus in Const versus and Egyptian House with neutral houses in between did not make for an easy war) I can still see why people have concerns.

Something like the system for the war in the last game could work, or just a "gather armies for one big battle". Alternatively, we could just punish people who stall. X turns with no hostile moves means an instant white peace with all captured settlements going to whoever is currently holding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

About that has been said recently, in a nutshell:

RGBs: I completely agree with TC, I'd rather not make players wait for the game to spawn avatars. Interacting purely in the senate for a few terms takes a great deal of dedication. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on people ditching their avatar (through carelessness or because they simply want to change) getting another one immediately after. Just a thought.

As far as new players going inactive, I think that stems mostly from feeling out of the loop. In my opinion it is up to the players in positions of power and importance to involve these new players.

Edicts for annexations: I'm partial to TC's proposition, mostly because even though I liked YLC's idea, I don't think the chancellor needs more power. I also feel its more simple to implement. YLC's idea would mean tracking which provinces are legit, which are not.

Civil Wars: I agree we need to avoid another War of Words. I liked the civil war event which ended LotR, a sort of special campaign mode for Civil War. Would this be too complicated to be used in every civil wars? If so, than the next best thing IMO is what TC proposed. How would the terrain of battle be picked? The side who has the avatar with most command stars could possibly chose the terrain of battle, representing a better strategist?

---

I agree with most points, except -

It would be rare to have an illegitimate province, and it could be kept track of easily on a list of conquered provinces among the KotF Library. Second, we can take away a chancellors ability to decide whether or not to fund it, simply by stating he can't until it is legitimate, hence my refinement of the rule - a friendly chancellor is still important, but not overpowering. Again, not very hard, since legitimizing a province is usually a once off thing - essentially like keeping track of Chancellors.

I dislike the idea of simply making a single battle of it, simply because it removes any strategy on the map. I wouldn't mind it if it became localized however - a fight in one area or over one settlement, while skipping movement to and from. I would never, if war was declared upon me, ever summon up all my forces and bet it on one battle in the middle of nowhere - it's war, I'm not going to be a gentleman about it! I'm going to try and use tactics to bleed my opponent dry first, force small battles, or costly ones. What TC is proposing is basically the opposite and limits tactical choice - again, the basis is solid, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose my fights instead of rumbling it out in the ring with what will almost always be a 600 pound gorilla.

Why would it be rare to have illegitimate provinces? Unless I understood something incorrectly, people could just rush castles, which are pretty easy to keep in good order since we couldn't raise the taxes. I'd much rather give some more power to the king, which can be contested by the more powerful nobles, makes for good politicking.

As for the Civil War rules, I think I won't get into that right now, too tired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

Why would it be rare to have illegitimate provinces? Unless I understood something incorrectly, people could just rush castles, which are pretty easy to keep in good order since we couldn't raise the taxes. I'd much rather give some more power to the king, which can be contested by the more powerful nobles, makes for good politicking.

As for the Civil War rules, I think I won't get into that right now, too tired.

---

Simply giving it to the King makes it hard to defy him outright, and prevents essentially rebellious nobles - case in point, the Dukes of Aquitaine and Bavaria are very good examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Simply giving it to the King makes it hard to defy him outright, and prevents essentially rebellious nobles - case in point, the Dukes of Aquitaine and Bavaria are very good examples.

---

But Dukes can defy him pretty well, if they stir up support. Rebellious nobles usually are rebellious because they have power (I.E. Dukes). One lone knight with his small troupe taking a city for himself and keeping does not only break immersion (in my case) but also does not make much sense IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

But Dukes can defy him pretty well, if they stir up support. Rebellious nobles usually are rebellious because they have power (I.E. Dukes). One lone knight with his small troupe taking a city for himself and keeping does not only break immersion (in my case) but also does not make much sense IMO.

---

Yes, yet said Knight is basically helpless once he does so and is a nonfactor, and most likely will gain enemies instead of friends.

However, would you agree to the idea that the province comes before the Council, and that province allocation is either by the King, or the Council can give it to whom they please if they have 2/3rds majority?