Stewards or Dukes?

Do you want the three starting non-Royal generals to be permanent Dukes of their Houses or Stewards until the King's sons/son-inlaws are ready to rule them?

In the LtC early campaign, France has five provinces and five generals (including faction heir, prince and three non-royal generals) at start, so we will have four initial Houses with a general and Paris with the King. The King has a faction heir, the Dauphin, a 19 year old daughter and two young sons, aged 2 and 1. One House - Aquitaine/Toulouse - will be led by the Dauphin. It is the fate of the other three that is being voted on.

If you vote for permanent Dukes, that is voting for the current rules. Each starter non-royal general will become a Duke and nominate his successor. Unfortunately, they will not have children spawned unless they marry into the royal family tree, so succession is likely not to be by blood line initially.

If you vote for Steward Dukes, then that is voting for the KotR system. Each starter non-royal general will act as a Duke with full powers, but then should step aside when a royal replacement appears. The royal replacements will be the two boys, age 0 and 1, when they come of age; and the husband of who ever the 19 year old Princess marries.

To declare an interest, I prefer the Steward system, but these the pros and cons of the two systems as I understand them:

Permanent Dukes:
- Makes the game more decentralised and feudal
- In medieval France, not all Houses were of royal blood
- The Steward system would give the King too much power at the start
- The steward system would make recruitable generals of lower status

Steward Dukes:
- The core of each starter House will be neatly represented by each of the four tries of the royal family tree
- Making each House dynastic will encourage "familial" role-playing, so brothers and sons will tend to be aligned together
- There are interesting role-playing issues around Stewards - do they step aside (think Aragon/Boromir)
- It makes recruitable generals of lower status :laugh4:

I'd like to add a few comments for considerations.

I've been digging a bit in the Campaign files and found out its quite easy to make the two boys (or anyone really) the age we want them to be.

As for the fourth House, the princess won't necessarily marry inside the realm. (Going by the current rules) I've hinted at it a few times, but I guess now is a good a time as any to say it, I'll be reprising my role as the starting princess. Nevertheless, if most players feel she should marry an RGB to form the fourth House, I will oblige. (And hopefully the king will also oblige. :clown:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

I'd like to add a few comments for considerations.

I've been digging a bit in the Campaign files and found out its quite easy to make the two boys (or anyone really) the age we want them to be.

As for the fourth House, the princess won't necessarily marry inside the realm. (Going by the current rules) I've hinted at it a few times, but I guess now is a good a time as any to say it, I'll be reprising my role as the starting princess. Nevertheless, if most players feel she should marry an RGB to form the fourth House, I will oblige. (And hopefully the king will also oblige. :clown:)

---

I challenge you to a duel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For non-steward dukes BTW

Lol.. I had a feeling that you might go female again.. That didn't sound right.. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

I challenge you to a duel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For non-steward dukes BTW

---

Moi? I don't understand exactly why. :dizzy2:

Or is it because you are too afraid to fight a man? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

Moi? I don't understand exactly why. :dizzy2:

Or is it because you are too afraid to fight a man? :clown:

---

If I am going to fight for your hand, I'd prefer do so so literally.

It also insures me winning by cutting out the competitors and the middleman

:clown:

Lets keep this on topic.

For my part, I don't think it would be fair for me to have an opinion either way, so I'm abstaining. Both have interesting Pros and Cons.

Indeed, all duels for the fair princess's hand should go in the dueling thread. Or maybe OOC thread. :clown:

Even though Otto von Kassel was a direct beneficiary of the Steward system, I'm voting for Dukes as they stand now.

Essentially, those who want power must earn it through role-playing, plotting and success in the field. I'm a bit leary of handing a Duchy to a random player. One of the problems with KotR were "absentee" Dukes. Those who participate the most should have their rewards.

Now when the young Princes come of age and wish to take their place in the world, they can attempt to take or make a Duchy, but I'd rather see them do it through in game effort (Diplomacy, marriage or war for example) rather than by decree.

While an appealing family tree split into branches would be very nice, the inheritance AI tends to make a hash of it anyway.

I'd be fine with either system no matter how it shakes out.

Voted for Steward because I prefer the possible tensions that might develop from the situation.

If we go for that, I'm all for modding the King's sons ages to higher values.

It will certainly detract a bit from the historal truth but then M2TW makes Louis (the Prince) an adult while he was born in 1081 (on turn 2 :laugh4:)

Sadly, both the two younger sons died in infancy.

Do you want me to rename them as well ? They should be Henri and Charles rather than Henry (english) and Michiel (which should be Michel).

I'm all for renaming them. (What sort of name is Michiel anyways. :dizzy2: Seems like Michel with a typo. :clown:)

If I recall correctly our Prince Louis is in fact Louis the Fat. If so, I insist we call him that. :clown:

Yes, that's him... Fatso.... But he was also called le Batailleur (the warmonger ?) so beware...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

Do you want me to rename them as well ? They should be Henri and Charles rather than Henry (english) and Michiel (which should be Michel).

---

Oh, please do rename him to Charles. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Oh, please do rename him to Charles. :laugh4:

---

???

Prince Charles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

???

---

The man with the elephantine ears ??

That would be my guess about what the joke is. :yes:

Only Ibn knows for sure, though. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

I'm all for renaming them. (What sort of name is Michiel anyways. :dizzy2: Seems like Michel with a typo. :clown:)

If I recall correctly our Prince Louis is in fact Louis the Fat. If so, I insist we call him that. :clown:

---

I was referring to that!
Edit: To me Michiel sounds like a girls name so I would prefer a different name and Charles is better.

Michel may sound like a girl's name, but it is a legitimate French male first name. I can't see changing names just because they sound more manly. :tongue:

No, but Phillipe of France never had a child named Michel...

True, but wouldn't something like this change every name along the line from "Michel" to Charles?

No, since this can be easily changed in descr_strat.txt file by replacing Michiel with Charles.

True... And I left Michel (spelled correctly) in the names file

Permanent Dukes. As noted in my commentary after KotR ended, the 4 clean groupings on the family tree contributed little but orderliness and caused more problems than it was worth. Trying to make our Houses conform to the tree only results in problems. It is best handled by ignoring it unless the players want to RP the relationships the tree shows their character has. If a player wants to completely ignore their family tree position, they should be free to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

...unless the players want to RP the relationships the tree shows their character has. If a player wants to completely ignore their family tree position, they should be free to do so.

---

I am happy to play with permanent Dukes (which is what the poll is suggesting) but I would regard players ignoring their position on the family tree just as I would regard them ignoring their traits - ie as bad role playing.

I know it's hard to role-play a close family relation with someone you don't really know on the internet and I know it takes two. But completely ignoring a bond of kinship just seems wrong. At least role-play that your father means nothing to you, is distant from you or something.

I'm inclined to suggest that a player who wants to completely ignore their family tree position be given a recruitable general and leave the family members to those who want to role-play family members.

Of course, the above is no criticism of TC, who wonderfully role-played Lothar as a brother to Matthias in KotR. :bow:

During LotR I was of the opinion that we should completely disregard the family tree, because all the adoptions, heir picking AI and MotH events make it a mess.

But now that we have the rule that all FMs belong (at least initially) to the house of their parent it might be more balanced to have all 4 starting houses on the family tree.

+ didn't KotR have a problem with how the family tree was populated from left to right or something? Basically the leftmost branch would get all the new family members while the rightmost got nothing until the whole row was filled out?

After the whole Order of St.John vs. The Rest of the Empire thing during the first half of LotR I'm quite leery of doing anything that will make one house weaker than the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I am happy to play with permanent Dukes (which is what the poll is suggesting) but I would regard players ignoring their position on the family tree just as I would regard them ignoring their traits - ie as bad role playing.

I know it's hard to role-play a close family relation with someone you don't really know on the internet and I know it takes two. But completely ignoring a bond of kinship just seems wrong. At least role-play that your father means nothing to you, is distant from you or something.

I'm inclined to suggest that a player who wants to completely ignore their family tree position be given a recruitable general and leave the family members to those who want to role-play family members.

Of course, the above is no criticism of TC, who wonderfully role-played Lothar as a brother to Matthias in KotR. :bow:

---

:shrug:

I am simply of the opinion that we cannot (and should not) force people to roleplay in a certain manner. It should certainly be encouraged, as it is good for the game, but I would prefer to let everyone decide who their characters are on their own. Even the best roleplayers ignore random traits that pop up late and have no conceivable relationship to the character they have built. The same can easily be true for relationships that appear on the family tree, particularly due to adoptions. While many of these could be roleplayed if the player worked at it, there's no way to force them to do so and so I prefer to keep the rules out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan

+ didn't KotR have a problem with how the family tree was populated from left to right or something? Basically the leftmost branch would get all the new family members while the rightmost got nothing until the whole row was filled out?

---

Yes, Austria was perpetually short on membership until we got fed up with it and allowed RBGs to be recruited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Yes, Austria was perpetually short on membership until we got fed up with it and allowed RBGs to be recruited.

---

And that's exactly why I prefer permanent Dukes. This helps shift the importance a bit away from the family tree too, which I think is a good idea.

And concerning the roleplaying, I think the choice makes it easier to deal with adoptions. If both sides agree an adoption could then be handled much more like raising someone to a hereditary status and starting a family of his own. Although you could always roleplay it like that too. So whatever pleases should be allowed.

I voted for Stewards.

If people don't want to role-play the family tree then we have a problem.

It can be and was one of the underpinning aspects to the Diet sessions and houses in KotR's.

How anyone can say so is beyond me.

We have and do place importance on the Prince and King in the game. The direct descendence of those people are the families and their on going relationships.

Gentlemen, I strongly suggest everyone realises that this is the case.

Off the top of my head, Romeo and Juliet, Plantagenant, The Houses and their family ties are and should can be our main story line.

No recognising that worries me.

If people want free form, then lets play: Last of the Space Empires or something.

Not something with so much resource material you can study it at university for 4 years and still not get through it all.

The thing is, the Dukes are effectively stewards to begin with regardless of whether me make it a rule, and more then likely a family member will take control, and it will remain so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I voted for Stewards.

If people don't want to role-play the family tree then we have a problem.

It can be and was one of the underpinning aspects to the Diet sessions and houses in KotR's.

How anyone can say so is beyond me.

We have and do place importance on the Prince and King in the game. The direct descendence of those people are the families and their on going relationships.

Gentlemen, I strongly suggest everyone realises that this is the case.

Off the top of my head, Romeo and Juliet, Plantagenant, The Houses and their family ties are and should can be our main story line.

No recognising that worries me.

If people want free form, then lets play: Last of the Space Empires or something.

Not something with so much resource material you can study it at university for 4 years and still not get through it all.

---

I actually think LotR had MORE of an emphasis on family tree relationships, despite being 'free form.' In KotR, family relationships meant relatively little after the first term or two. After that point, it was all about Duchy politics, most of which had little to do with relationships and everything to do with usual inter-House political struggles. In contrast, LotR was riddled with the Komnenoi-Tagaris feud. Those two families aligned against each other early on and their rivalries were pretty much the main plotline from the middle of the game until the end. Who was born to who and who was married to who played a big part in determining the allies of those two clans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFlax

(What sort of name is Michiel anyways. :dizzy2: Seems like Michel with a typo. :clown:)

---

actually, Michiel is a flemish/dutch male firts name.

it's supposed to be the flemish/dutch version of Michael (eng) / Michel (fr)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I actually think LotR had MORE of an emphasis on family tree relationships, despite being 'free form.' In KotR, family relationships meant relatively little after the first term or two. After that point, it was all about Duchy politics, most of which had little to do with relationships and everything to do with usual inter-House political struggles. In contrast, LotR was riddled with the Komnenoi-Tagaris feud. Those two families aligned against each other early on and their rivalries were pretty much the main plotline from the middle of the game until the end. Who was born to who and who was married to who played a big part in determining the allies of those two clans.

---

I certainly don't want the possibility of family based houses to be overlooked as a back ground to everything and anything that is going on.

I guess the houses were very strong in KotR. That wasn't the case in LotR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mini

actually, Michiel is a flemish/dutch male firts name.

it's supposed to be the flemish/dutch version of Michael (eng) / Michel (fr)

---

Ooops.... :embarassed: It just seemed an unlikely name from my point of view. (Which has no knowledge of flemish/dutch names.)

Ah crap...we're out voted.

This should be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Ah crap...we're out voted.

---

My fault, sorry - for a minute, I had what we wanted but then I blew it by putting it to vote:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=177

I forgot a basic lesson from student and office politics - if you are pushing for something, do it informally and don't put it to a vote unless you know you are going to win. Or, as TinCow might say, don't start a war unless you know you'll win it; don't ask a question in court you don't know the answer to. :laugh4:

To be honest, there have been some good arguments for permanent Dukes. I just hope we get Houses with some stability rather than shoals of piranhas coalescing just for the latest meal.

Meh, I'm not too worried one way or another. One of the things that frustrated me most about LotR was that I had tons of ideas about how to make it fun and interesting, but I couldn't implement them without being a player in the game. I promise, if things get boring it won't be long before everyone in the game wants to lynch me. I wouldn't be surprised if I cycled through more than two avatars this time.

I vow to create a character who can and will act decisively to keep things interesting. :skull:

:egypt:

It's funny how, as we repeat these WotS type PBMs, players may start to acquire certain reputations for how they will role play their characters.

When this game starts, I half expect old timers who receive their first in character friendly PMs from TinCow or Ramses may react like a Civ player who has just made first contact with Ghengis Khan or Shaka. :scared:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

It's funny how, as we repeat these WotS type PBMs, players may start to acquire certain reputations for how they will role play their characters.

When this game starts, I half expect old timers who receive their first in character friendly PMs from TinCow or Ramses may react like a Civ player who has just made first contact with Ghengis Khan or Shaka. :scared:

---

I think Ignoramus wins the award for consistency. His actions in LotR were very consistent with his trends in KotR. :2thumbsup:

I win the award for consistently screwing up :\

I hope I have that out of my system now...

All hail the young Emperor Komnenos!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I think Ignoramus wins the award for consistency. His actions in LotR were very consistent with his trends in KotR. :2thumbsup:

---

Maybe I won't pull a Hummel this time? Who knows? :laugh4:

Foolishly I did not set a date for this poll to close, but let's declare it over - Dukes will be "permanent" rather than Stewards.

Voting was 10:8 with 2 abstentions as of 10 July.