KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[Privateerkev]

Keep in mind that poaching a nice title from one of your vassals will probably piss them off. Actions like that have their own innate checks and balances.

That's very true. That's why my "balking" was only temporary.

[Byblos]

Kill me off somebody please, this is more than I can take

[Cecil XIX]

Keep in mind that poaching a nice title from one of your vassals will probably piss them off. Actions like that have their own innate checks and balances.

Not only that, but the Basileus could just remove the title if that happened, couldn't he? I mean it's not like someone could be on his special council without his permission.

[TinCow]

Not only that, but the Basileus could just remove the title if that happened, couldn't he? I mean it's not like someone could be on his special council without his permission.

There are no provisions in the rules to allow for the Basileus' absolute control over those titles. However, he does have a double-strength 'force retinue transfer' power that can be used on any player in the game (Basileus' Power #7). He could use that to grab the title back from the thief.

[Ituralde]

Not only that, but the Basileus could just remove the title if that happened, couldn't he? I mean it's not like someone could be on his special council without his permission.

Those are the loopholes we're looking for. It depends how much power you intent to give the Basileus over the titles. I believe he already has a power where he can force-transfer a retinue member? Is this enough or should he be given additional power over these special 'titles'? Or should they be non-removable after all?

edit: nices simultaneous posting there.

[TinCow]

Is this enough or should he be given additional power over these special 'titles'? Or should they be non-removable after all?

I'm happy with them the way they are. The Basileus' power makes it impossible for someone to permanently steal such a title. At worst, the Basileus would have to wait 10 turns to correct the error, but that's an extreme case and it would likely be far shorter, if not an instantaneous correction. This alone will make 'theft' of the titles rare simply because it would damage relationships with the vassal and the Basileus, and it wouldn't accomplish much in the long-run.

[AussieGiant]

Good re-write TC. It looks nice and tidy to me.

Good 'spot' as well Ituralde. I like having your keen mind around again after so long.

I like the delayed start idea too. This is quality stuff being able to "see" how things are looking before actually jumping in.

[Cecil XIX]

It just ocurred to me that since Tincow will be setting this up as a hotseat, it should be possible to change the name of our faction. I suggest that the Faction Leader be empowered to do this at any time.

[TinCow]

It just ocurred to me that since Tincow will be setting this up as a hotseat, it should be possible to change the name of our faction. I suggest that the Faction Leader be empowered to do this at any time.

Faction names can be changed in Hotseat games? How is that done?

[_Tristan_]

I believe they can even be changed in the SP campaign, simply by double-clicking on the faction name in the Overview Scroll... They can be changed in the Hotseat for sure, though...

Ask EF... He is very proud of his "Ferret" Sultanate in the BC hotseat

It works the same as renaming a settlement...

[deguerra]

I don't think its possible in SP, but I'm not sure. But it is definitely doable in hotseat games. I've expanded on both my Danes and Oman already

[TinCow]

Hmmm. That's an interesting ability. We could give everyone the ability to change the name of any settlement they own, and give the Basileus the ability to change the name of the faction. Minor stuff like this can be great for IC flavor.

Thoughts?

[Ignoramus]

An interesting idea. It might provide an excuse for some nobles to revolt if the think that the Basileos is casting aside the old traditions of the Empire.

[Ferret]

Ah Iggy, always thinking of revolt aren't you

Name changing is as simple as clicking on the name and typing a new one, the name in the faction overview scroll that is, and no it cannot be done in SP as there is no name in the overview scroll.

[TinCow]

Well, we're using a hotseat game, so that's not an issue.

[Ferret]

Yeah I was just clearing it up for Tristan, changing settlement names is going to be very fun though, I'm sure I can bribe OK with some cookies so that the faction is renamed the 'Ferret Empire' and the capital is 'Ferret City'. Which is of course the most historically accurate names, as you all know the ferrets had a lot of influence of the history of you humans.

Here is my post in the Username thread if you seek more information.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your parents named you Elite Ferret!?!

well not exactly, it all started back in the year 1066, when William was busy invading England. My ancestors were a group of warrior ferrets under the command of Edward the Confessor, before he passed away. They decided to side with the Normans as they had more 'ferret friendly' policies than the Saxons or Danes.

Then after the war was won my ancestors were rewarded by having a prosperous town in Bedfordshire, South East England, named after their race and being given the title 'of ferrets'. Over the years that title simply merged into a surname such as Smith or Wright, and newborn ferrets were given Christian names as well. My parents were the ones who relinquished control of Ferret Town (as featured in the BC hotseat game - ask phonics or Ramses) in favour of settling down to a quiet life in a country manor. They named me 'Elite' in memory of the brave elite ferrets who performed a crucial role in conquering England from the weasels Saxons.

And that is where my name originates from

More info here:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ferrets

edit:or maybe I'm insane...

[TinCow]

The OOC thread question about province assignments reminded me of something that had been briefly discussed and forgotten about. I think we need to link the Basileus and the Capital together in some formal manner. My thoughts:

1) The Capital cannot be shifted to a different settlement unless it is owned by the Basileus.
2) The Basileus can move the Capital at will.
3) The Basileus cannot give away the current Capital settlement in his Will. The Capital settlement must be inherited by the Caesar.

Thoughts?

[Privateerkev]

The OOC thread question about province assignments reminded me of something that had been briefly discussed and forgotten about. I think we need to link the Basileus and the Capital together in some formal manner. My thoughts:

1) The Capital cannot be shifted to a different settlement unless it is owned by the Basileus.
2) The Basileus can move the Capital at will.
3) The Basileus cannot give away the current Capital settlement in his Will. The Capital settlement must be inherited by the Caesar.

Thoughts?

What if the Basileus moves the capital, then gives away the old province to someone? That pretty much prevents the Caesar from inheriting the old one.

[TinCow]

So? The Caesar will inherit the new Capital. If he really dislikes the new Capital, he needs to figure out a way to get the old Capital back under his control so that he can move it back.

[Privateerkev]

So? The Caesar will inherit the new Capital. If he really dislikes the new Capital, he needs to figure out a way to get the old Capital back under his control so that he can move it back.

But does that bypass the very thing your trying to do? I assume we're talking about Constantinople. It is the plum province and will probably be sought after.

I just wanted to know if it was a loophole you had not thought of or was something you rather see resolved IC. It is obviously the latter.

(you did ask for our thoughts)

[TinCow]

I expect Constantinople to remain the capital for a long, long time, if not permanently, but the idea wasn't designed with that settlement in mind. The idea is just another thing to increase IC roleplaying options and possibilities for plotlines. In KOTR it was very natural to move to capital to Rome after it was conquered, and Frankfurt was quickly forgotten about by the subsequent Emperors. I could imagine similar IC situations in which movement of the capital would occur.

The basic 'movement' power was simply to avoid any OOC debate over whether such a move was legal. The 'inheritence' power was designed to maintain Imperial power over the capital, wherever it might be. The limitation on movement of the Capital to only Basileus-owned provinces was to prevent exploitation of the rule and to require some fun politicing if the Basileus doesn't have control of a province that he wants to move the Capital to. For instance, Rome is once again a completely viable target for the Capital, if some future Basileus wants to try and recreate the Roman Empire (again). If some random House conquers Rome, some fun IC politics result where the Basileus tries to get that province from its owner. Perhaps the Basileus could even be the person who encourages the conquest in the first place. Perhaps he offers a province and the marriage of a Princess to the man who manages to gift it to him, resulting in a mass scramble by several Houses to conquer the place, perhaps even mini Civil Wars to stop competitors from reaching there first. All good fun!

[Ituralde]

This is interesting news, I think. Up to now I didn't even consider that the Basileus might have an actual Will. I thought all the settlements he owns would go to the Cesar anyway. Apparently this isn't the case.

I agree with Privateerkev that the current wording points 3) can easily be circumvented, meaning if the Basileus really wants to deprive the Cesar of owning Constantinople he can do so anyways. So I'm really not sure what to think of this. I agree that the Basileus should be able to change the capital to another settlement he owns.

The whole inheritance stuff has me confuse though.

[TinCow]

What's confusing? As it stands at the moment, the Basileus has the same inheritance ability as anyone else. I wanted him to keep it because it seemed realistic to allow a Basileus to reward a loyal follower by naming him heir to a particular province or retinue. The suggested rule change would simply prevent the Basileus from giving away the current capital, if he owned it at the time of his death. While there are ways to circumvent this rule, they all require the reigning Basileus to disadvantage himself in order to spite the Caesar. I see no problems with that.

[Ituralde]

But then the Basileus wouldn't really disadvantage himself. For example if the Basileus owned Constantinople and Rhodos and wanted to spite the Cesar while at the same time rewarding a loyal follower. He could then just move the Capital to Rhodos during his lifetime and give away Constantinople when he dies.

That way he would retain control over Constantinople during his lifetime and keep the Cesar from having that province. All of this his highly theoretical though, since all benefits from a Capital come from IC issues, none of them give a OOC advantage as such. It might even be more profitable in the long run to have a Castle than having a City, so I'm really not sure about this.

The rule addition is needed, since it obviously fixes a very important point, that makes sure that the Cesar will always get at least one province, this province being the capital (for whatever that's worth) after all.

[TinCow]

I'm not concerned about the Caesar not having any provinces. The Caesar keeps all of his provinces when he becomes Basileus. So, even without this rule the only way that the Caesar could possibly become Basileus and yet have no provinces at all would be if he was a lowly Strator and the Basileus made a Will and intentionally did not name the Caesar as heir to a single province. This would be very unlikely to happen and even if it did it would mean the Caesar was a pretty unpopular and powerless guy, so leaving him with no control over any provinces even when he is elevated to Basileus would make sense IC.

You're right about the movement of the Capital not being a major disadvantage, though. If we want, we could make ownership of the Capital a bit more important in a very simple manner: we give a free Prioritization to the Capital settlement itself, regardless of who owns it. Since this would almost always be the Basileus, we could balance it out by reducing the Basileus' Prioritization power to only 1 use per term. So, the result would be one prioritization for his Capital, and one for anywhere else (including a second use in the Capital). Moving the Capital to a less important city would prevent him from using the prioritization in a more useful manner and giving the Capital city away altogether would completely deprive him of a prioritization.

[Kagemusha]

Of course if the Caesar would be disgruntled by his fathers decision of moving the capital, he could always ally with enemies of his father, rebel and kill off the Basileus, before any will would take place, or die trying. I dont see this rule hampering the game.

EDIT:

By the way. Im sorry to bring this up during this late time, but earlier when it was talked about, what was the reasoning behind banning Basileus having direct vassals? If there is not anyone who can protect him, other then his own Imperial army, this could turn into Basileus killing fest, also that hampers a lot any kind of centralization of power trends.

[Ignoramus]

Ah Iggy, always thinking of revolt aren't you

Don't worry, unless OK snub's Ionnis, Ionnis will be loyal, as in history.

[TinCow]

By the way. Im sorry to bring this up during this late time, but earlier when it was talked about, what was the reasoning behind banning Basileus having direct vassals? If there is not anyone who can protect him, other then his own Imperial army, this could turn into Basileus killing fest, also that hampers a lot any kind of centralization of power trends.

Simply because it's pointless. Nothing can be gained by swearing to a Basileus, since the Basileus cannot be advanced in rank and his powers generally apply to every Senator anyway. There's nothing to gain from swearing to a Basileus. At the same time, the Basileus is supposed to be the head of the entire faction. While Civil Wars are possible, they will almost certainly be the exception, not the rule. Removing the Basileus from any House gives him some nominal impartiality. It's the same thing we did in KOTR. There's nothing stopping a Basileus from favoring one House over another, but it will have to be done with informal arrangements.

[TinCow]

Ok, since we've had few comments on my proposed RP-boosting rule changes, I'm going to simply add them in. If anyone has any protests, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Change #1: The following power will be altered to read as follows for all ranks that posses it (bolding is the added portion):

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.

Change #2: Two new Powers given to Basileus:

1)

Can rename the Byzantine Empire at any time.

2)

Can move the Capital at any time, as long as the new Capital is controlled by the Basileus.

The above comments convinced me that the Inheritance provision of Change #3 wouldn't accomplish much and would likely add confusion to the game. Therefore I am not including it.

[Ignoramus]

Can I just say that perhaps there should be some OOC understanding not to rename settlements or the faction after silly things? We don't want Athens, for example, to be renamed by me to Ignoramus's Little City or something like that. That would kill the roleplaying and turn the game into chaos.