KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[FactionHeir]

I suppose some OOC agreement might be useful for banishing/exiling.
Although as Zim correctly said, this could defeat the purpose of it being an ability.
But reading Ramses' comment, I think adding following may make it fairer (and ensure that players do agree):
- Requires that the noble banished is currently involved in a civil war

This is because the FL can then say "OK, you guys are fighting within my country, and I think I favor X over Y, so Y is hereby declared an outlaw". If you are already in a civil war, its basically assumed that you agree to your character being involved in some more dramatic event.

[Zim]

I like FH's idea regarding banishment. It seems fitting that a Faction Leader could take a side in a Civil War that way. Perhaps to keep the power from being too unbalancing the banishment would automatically end if the Civil War did? Or would that eliminate the point of having the power in the first place?

I've been kind of thinking about what AussieGiant said. It does seem a bit as if the current ranking system would result in a couple very big groups. In a two or three group system, whoever won the favor of the Chancellor would face little risk from a Civil War. Also, no matter how many players join at the start, in my experience participation in KOTR tended to fluctuate back and forth around a range rather lower than the number of theoretically active (from the active thread) players, making it even harder to get more than a couple groups.

Maybe we could cut out a couple ranks between knight and Duke? That way a theoretically small house could still survive with a decently powerful leader, but a larger house with more people in the intermediate ranks would still have some big advantages (like more personal armies). Grand Dukes could then require two Dukes as vassals, to ensure that they remain rare as Tincow intended.

Anyway, it could be a nightmare to rebalance the rank powers, and I'm sure I missed something important, but it's a thought.

[deguerra]

That idea does have some merit. Perhaps could we bestow some powers on Grand Dukes, say, that only become active when he has a certain number of Dukes or whatever other rank under him.

That way, the little groups can get powerful as well, but there is still some incentive for increasing your family.

[Privateerkev]

There might only be 2 or 3 "houses" but they'll probably be relatively fluid. In KotR, the Houses were fairly static until he started using RBG's, got new players, or used OOC methods (like moving the von Mahrens). We were bound by the game's whacky reproduction mechanic and when we stopped spreading our Empire, the family member mechanic stalled.

I predict things will fluctuate wildly for the beginning. We'll stabalize as the characters get fleshed out and we get used to the rules. Then, there will be periods of fluctuation again when new players join, players leave, avatars die, ect...

The House structure will be really up to us. We could all agree IC and just form 1 mega House for awhile. We could all split up. There might be a big house and a couple littles ones. It's pretty much whatever we can think of.

One thought though. We might want to consider making civil wars even harder. If their too easy to start, we might just resort to them all the time and swallow up the smaller groups. Of course that might be balanced out by a relative lack of people willing to implement them. Like KotR, I'd prefer if civil wars were a last resort to stave off massive player boredom. But I see them having the possibility of being used as a basic policy tool. Like it might be used to settle everything.

Or maybe keep civil wars easy to do and we should just get used to being nicer to each-other IC.

Maybe I'm having a hard time switching gears from focusing on the AI to focusing on internal struggle. Well, that's why we have these breaks in between games I guess. ^_^

[gibsonsg91921]

Maybe it's just me, and that I should probably have no say, but I would wonder if it could be a follower tree instead of a follower chain. I wonder how that would be implemented, though, and I don't want to get rid of any ranks.

[AussieGiant]

Thinking out load again.

Good points PK on the Civil War topic. I certainly would like that to be a relatively unusual thing...but I guess that would have to be handled IC.

Another thing I was thinking about was how the titles are given and revoked. In medieval times when a title was given...and it was given by the FL in most instances, OR inherited through a family (with the FL permitting the continuation of the title and privileges), it wasn't removed due to the structure we have recommended here.

I certainly agree with the general concept but something just a little more rigid would be more accurate and provide a little more of a 'base' for role playing with. Maybe rank allocations are given based on structure but can't be revoked unless by the FL or death (or exile).

To me the main characteristic of feudalism was a series of Oath contracts given from top to bottom in the hierarchy. I know the FL is the only thing we can't really control, and I don't think anyone wants us to control it...but the only linear Oath contract that IS not controlled by us in the one between the Dukes/Grand Dukes and the FL in this example...everything under that is fluid and up to IC situations.

I do believe we should replicate this as best as possible to give the feeling of feudalism.

[Privateerkev]

To me the main characteristic of feudalism was a series of Oath contracts given from top to bottom in the hierarchy. I know the FL is the only thing we can't really control, and I don't think anyone wants us to control it...but the only linear Oath contract that IS not controlled by us in the one between the Dukes/Grand Dukes and the FL in this example...everything under that is fluid and up to IC situations.

I do believe we should replicate this as best as possible to give the feeling of feudalism.

I guess it's a balancing act. If it's too rigid, you'll have instances where it won't be very fun. If it's too fluid, then it isn't feudal.

We're a funny lot. We want power structures. And we want them to be at least somewhat rigid and hereditary. But we want flexibility.

Maybe the new rules replicate that "middle ground" we're looking for and it's just up to us to implement it IC. The fact that civil war is an option when a vassel breaks from a lord is a powerful tool.

I'm starting to wish that we find some easier way to actually implement civil wars. Because the idea of slogging the game to a standstill for a week or two every time someone gets pissed at their Duke makes me want to have civil wars be rare. That's why I said in my last post that I wanted them to be harder to start.

But, if they were resolved in some sort of "quick and dirty" fashion, I wouldn't mind them being more frequent or easier to start. So, it's actually an OOC concern that is making me cautious using an IC tool.

The method Econ came up with for doing civil wars is awesome. But, it is also very time consuming and tedious. One or two of those per game is fine. But a long series of small "Battle of Flemish Crossroads" type battles will make me quite bored.

Now, I don't know what that method would be. But, if the civil wars could be figured out faster, then they would become a powerful IC check on the feudal structure.

*edit*

I know TC has a "voting option" so we get to decide which of 3 ways to work a civil war. I wish there was an even quicker way than the 3 we have. If the power difference between the two parties is too large, just roll dice or something.

[AussieGiant]

I guess it's a balancing act. If it's too rigid, you'll have instances where it won't be very fun. If it's too fluid, then it isn't feudal.

We're a funny lot. We want power structures. And we want them to be at least somewhat rigid and hereditary. But we want flexibility.

Maybe the new rules replicate that "middle ground" we're looking for and it's just up to us to implement it IC. The fact that civil war is an option when a vassel breaks from a lord is a powerful tool.

I'm starting to wish that we find some easier way to actually implement civil wars. Because the idea of slogging the game to a standstill for a week or two every time someone gets pissed at their Duke makes me want to have civil wars be rare. That's why I said in my last post that I wanted them to be harder to start.

But, if they were resolved in some sort of "quick and dirty" fashion, I wouldn't mind them being more frequent or easier to start. So, it's actually an OOC concern that is making me cautious using an IC tool.

The method Econ came up with for doing civil wars is awesome. But, it is also very time consuming and tedious. One or two of those per game is fine. But a long series of small "Battle of Flemish Crossroads" type battles will make me quite bored.

Now, I don't know what that method would be. But, if the civil wars could be figured out faster, then they would become a powerful IC check on the feudal structure.

I also agree PK. Some middle ground would be good. What that is, I have no idea.

Likewise after reading GH's very open and honest recounting of how much time is required to umpire one of those battles made me really wonder if we can deal with it very well.

[Privateerkev]

I also agree PK. Some middle ground would be good. What that is, I have no idea.

Likewise after reading GH's very open and honest recounting of how much time is required to umpire one of those battles made me really wonder if we can deal with it very well.

Re-reading TC's rule on PvP, it looks like us, the players, get to decide OOC how tedious we want these things to be. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how to refine the idea.

I guess my point was, that OOC anxieties about the game crawling were making me cautious about using IC tools. Those IC tools can help keep the feudal structure rigid enough to address the concerns you have.

So, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the new rules. (with no coffee, no less)

[AussieGiant]

Re-reading TC's rule on PvP, it looks like us, the players, get to decide OOC how tedious we want these things to be. Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how to refine the idea.

I guess my point was, that OOC anxieties about the game crawling were making me cautious about using IC tools. Those IC tools can help keep the feudal structure rigid enough to address the concerns you have.

So, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around the new rules. (with no coffee, no less)

I also see those points PK.

TC's put a lot of thought into this and it's a lot more subtle than I expected, especially now that I've re-read everything. It seems his understanding of the roleplaying aspect is making somethings "seem" missing, while in fact I'd say he's thought about it but chosen to let IC stuff create the framework we want.

Personally I need some structure. And the feudal aspect is where I'd be looking for it in this game.

Of course I am a true proponent of less OOC rules as the IC stuff will "blow out" the regulations we are talking about here.


I need to get a coffee and have another think.

[TinCow]

Yes, the entire group of players gets to decide how a Civil War is fought. If they pick AI Battles, the game shouldn't slow down much at all. I do still hope that people will come up with different ideas on how to fight these things, though. There's got to be an easier system out there somewhere.

At the same time, I don't expect Civil Wars to be common. They are allowed by the rules because we need them to be possible, but possible is a big step away from frequent. Entering a Civil War is a major gamble for avatars, because it's almost certainly going to end with one of the two sides losing everything they have, possibly including their avatars. As we've seen, PvP combat is far, far more lethal than normal battles against the AI. Unless you're willing to risk your character's death, you're probably going to look for a political solution. Any Civil Wars that do erupt will probably be well-planned strikes designed to overwhelm an enemy quickly before the Chancellor can interfere. I could be wrong, but that's my feeling at least. As a group of players, I don't think we really want to massacre each other all the time. We just want to have the option of using military power as a last resort.

Regarding Houses, the concern over 2-3 large houses is important. It is my personal feeling, though, that we're more likely to see a lot of small Houses rather than a few large ones. We're going to be RPing our characters just like before. A chivalrous avatar concerned with spreading Catholicism in North Africa will not ally himself with a Dread House concerned with conquering England. I expect to see people ally based on geography (mutual defense) and RPing (similar motivation). It will be very, very difficult to keep 5-7 people happy and all working towards the same goal.

At the same time, you only need 3 players to get a Private Army, which is the point at which a House gains the ability to ignore the Chancellor if they want to. It should be pretty easy to get 3 people working together. I would thus expect people to cluster together into groups, which then evolve into political coalitions during Diet Sessions, because no single House has enough votes to get their man elected Chancellor. So, there will be political pandering towards the interests of some of the smaller Houses to secure their votes.

I could be wrong, though. I've been imagining how this system would work in my head for a long time now and I may have convinced myself of things that aren't realistic.

[TinCow]

TC's put a lot of thought into this and it's a lot more subtle than I expected, especially now that I've re-read everything. It seems his understanding of the roleplaying aspect is making somethings "seem" missing, while in fact I'd say he's thought about it but chosen to let IC stuff create the framework we want.

This is entirely accurate. I have tried to only make rules about the mechanics of gameplay, leaving all IC considerations out of it. I sometimes call it 'politics' but the philosophy behind the rules is that the role-playing is the center-piece of the entire game. The rules are simply there to make the game work, but in a way that allows for as much freedom to RP as you want. I've tried to make a system where anyone can try to do almost anything. It may not work, but at least it would be theoretically possible.

[Ramses II CP]

Regarding the Houses, I don't think we'll know for sure unless we run a test game. It seems to me that the system TC put together is flexible enough to allow for houses of all sizes and numbers. If we ended up with the 25 or so players TC wants I'd see at least 5 houses and several more minor factions.

Anyway, I don't want a more rigid, realistic tree system because I think it would be less fun. Having a 'ladder' style system allows for every link in the chain to play a critical role, so being at the top is a constant balancing act. Yes, even that lowly Baronet has a significant influence on his Grand Duke, and if the two don't get along who knows how far down the ladder will unravel. It'll be very interesting, and probably very unstable.

[TinCow]

I definitely think we should run a test at some point, but I'd like to focus that more towards the Civil War mechanics than the feudal rank mechanics. Any 'bugs' in the feudal structure will probably take too long to be noticed in any test game. By contrast, we can figure out really quickly how well the Civil War system will work. I would recommend setting up a test game that is already advanced a couple dozen turns, and then intentionally creating 2-3 rival Houses which go to war against each other to see how the Civil War system will play out. For ease, we can just use AI Battles each time there is one, since the result doesn't really matter anyway.

[Ferret]

I think the way that PvP battles should be handled by the partcipants (and lords of the participants) and the people who are going to run the battle. I don't see why anyone else has the right to contribute to the decision. The fast tabletop style would be my favourite unless it is a very important battle.

[TinCow]

The reason I gave everyone else a vote is because everyone is impacted by a PvP battle. If it takes a week to fight it, the game is slowed down for everyone. Thus, the full-scale Tabletop Battles should only be allowed for battles that the majority of people think are important enough to give full attention to. If the majority of people think it's an annoyance, then we should get the battle done as fast as possible. That's why the vote is open to everyone and unweighted.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I think the way that PvP battles should be handled by the partcipants (and lords of the participants) and the people who are going to run the battle. I don't see why anyone else has the right to contribute to the decision. The fast tabletop style would be my favourite unless it is a very important battle.

This was my initial reaction. Then, however, TinCow stressed the fact that everybody was automatically going to pick the very time-consuming PvP option, which of course was correct, considering that's what everybody, without fail, picked in the past. With the memory of the general drag of Normandy/Flemish Crossroads in my mind, I realized his point. The game shouldn't be slowed down that often, and that's what the other players are for.

Of course, the actual participants have a right to see that their battle is given the proper amount of effort.

PvP was kind of a contentious point until about halfway through Trent when the Abbreviated PvP idea came up. The goal is it'll be easier on everybody - non-participants, participants who might not have time to meet seven consecutive 24-hour deadlines, and umpires - while still being fair.

My initial suggestion was that normal PvP be reserved for extraordinary circumstances only, when it simply demands more attention than one turn of umpire resolution can provide, when nobody will mind the time delay in order to get the battle right.

As far as what consists of extraordinary circumstances, I'm not even going to attempt to define it since it goes against the flow of the other rules. It's up to the players to decide that.

Although, I can't remember proposing this or not, but maybe the participants should get their votes weighted something like 2x the non-particpant's. That should keep things in balance.

-edit- Never mind the last paragraph. Looks like TC clarified while I was typing.

[TinCow]

Since discussion seems to have slowed, I have updated the Rules to strip out all the commentary and to include the changes I mentioned previously. I have given the 'seize fleet' ability to the Duke, Grand Duke, and Faction Leader. If people think it should be extended down further, Marquess would be an option, though I don't think it should go lower than that. I have also included a draft of the new Historical Army Rule based on the discussion in that poll thread.

Also, I have tried to maintain the Faction Leader's authority by giving him a couple powers that the Grand Duke had, but that he did not. Specifically, I added the 'retinue transfer' and 'destroy building' powers to the Faction Leader. I then altered both of those powers, plus the 'prioritized building' power to allow the Faction Leader to use them twice per Chancellor term (Everyone else can only do it once) and I allowed him to use them on any nobleman/settlement in the faction, not just his own possessions. This should give the Faction Leader a lot more political power in the game, since he now has multiple methods of directly rewarding and punishing people for their actions. I also prevented the powers from working on anyone who is at war with the Faction Leader, since it wouldn't make sense otherwise and it gives a way for the noblemen to avoid this power, albeit an extreme one.

Let's keep hammering away at this, though. The changes we have made are good and I expect we'll make a lot more improvements before we're ready to start. I have spoilered away the rank powers to make the rules easier to read.

----------

1. General

*1.1 - Game Settings:

M2TW with the 1.3 patch
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.
LIST OF MODS TO BE USED

*1.2 – Avatars: Each player will roleplay a nobleman of FACTION. On joining the game, each player will choose an avatar to represent this nobleman. Avatars can be ‘family members’ or recruitable generals. Players are reminded that due to limitations imposed by M2TW, only avatars on the family tree will be able to marry, have children, and have a chance of becoming FACTION HEIR and FACTION LEADER. Recruitable generals can be spawned at any time, but family member creation is beyond our control. Players may not use agents as avatars, since agents cannot fight battles and have a different set of stats from family members and recruitable generals.

1.3 – 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.

1.4 – 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 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. 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.

1.5 – Events: Whenever they desire, but no more often than once every 10 turns, econ21, TinCow, 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, including * marked 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.


2. Feudal Heirarchy

2.1 – Rank Gain and Loss: All noblemen enter the game at the rank of Knight. Noblemen will be promoted to a higher rank as soon as they meet the requirements for that rank. If, at any point, a nobleman ceases to meet the requirements of their existing rank, they will be demoted to the highest rank whose requirements they meet.

2.2 – Gaining Provinces: Except as stated in Rule 2.7, noblemen gain control of all provinces they personally conquer. In the event that multiple noblemen are part of the conquering army, the nobleman controlled by the player who actually fought the battle is considered the conqueror. If the battle is autoresolved, the commanding nobleman is considered the conqueror. If no nobleman is involved in the battle whatsoever, the FACTION LEADER is considered the conqueror. At the start of the game, econ21 will determine which noblemen receive control of the starting provinces, to a maximum of one province per nobleman.

2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

2.4 – Retinue: At any time, a nobleman may give any retinue item/member they possess to another nobleman 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, console commands may be used to allow the transfer or removal. A nobleman’s retinue can also be transferred at the time of his death, if the transfer was specified in a valid Will.

2.5 – Oaths of Fealty: In order to become a Vassal of another player, a nobleman must take an Oath of Fealty by specifically swearing allegiance to that player in a public thread. The prospective Lord has the right to refuse to accept the Oath. An Oath of Fealty can be broken if either the Lord or the Vassal specifically revokes it in a public thread. A nobleman can only have one Lord at a time, but he may have an unlimited number of Vassals. Oaths of Fealty cannot be sworn or broken while the GOVERNING BODY is in session.

2.6 – Loyalty in a Feudal Chain: A Vassal’s loyalty is always to his Lord, even if his Lord is himself a Vassal of another nobleman. If a nobleman swears or breaks an Oath of Fealty, his relationship to his Vassals remains unchanged. In this way, a Lord can bring his entire chain of followers into the service of another nobleman without anyone else having to change their status. Similarly, a nobleman will take his entire chain of followers with him if he breaks his Oath of Fealty.

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FACTION HEIR:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION HEIR
Influence: +1 to the Stat Influence cap
Powers:
(1) This rank is always held at the same time as other feudal ranks. The Influence and Powers of the FACTION HEIR are added on top of the Influence and Powers of the nobleman’s other feudal rank(s), unless the Power specifically states otherwise.
(2) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(3) In the absence of the FACTION LEADER, the FACTION HEIR can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involved the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION HEIR will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(4) Owns one Royal Army. This Power voids the ability of the FACTION HEIR to own a Private or Royal Army through the Powers of any other feudal rank.

FACTION LEADER:
Requirements: Must be the in-game FACTION LEADER
Influence: Authority Stat
Powers:
(1) Can propose an unlimited number of Edicts or Amendments per GOVERNING BODY Session and their Edicts and Amendments do not need to be seconded.
(2) Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control. Can destroy any building in their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.
(3) Can call Emergency GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(4) Owns one Royal Army.
(5) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can Prioritize one building in any build queue in any settlement. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(6) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can destroy one building in any settlement. Buildings in the barracks, archery range, stable, siege engine, and gunsmith lines cannot be destroyed with this power. This power cannot be used on any settlement controlled by a nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(7) Twice per full 10 turn CHANCELLOR term, can force a transfer of one retinue member/item from any nobleman to themselves or any other nobleman. This power cannot be used on any nobleman who is in a state of War with the FACTION LEADER.
(8) Can declare war on any faction at any time, for any reason.
(9) Can veto one Edict or Amendment per 3 ranks of Authority.
(10) Decides which nobleman, if any, a Princess should marry.
(11) Once during his reign, the FACTION LEADER may automatically assume the post of CHANCELLOR. The FACTION LEADER must declare he is exercising that right at a GOVERNING BODY session; he will then be appointed CHANCELLOR with no election. This right can only be invoked once, but the FACTION LEADER may also compete in normal CHANCELLOR elections at other GOVERNING BODY Sessions.
(12) Can ban noblemen from a GOVERNING BODY Session. Banned noblemen cannot speak or propose legislation, but they are permitted to vote.
(13) Can adjudicate on rule disputes. However, if a rule dispute directly involves the FACTION LEADER or the FACTION HEIR, the nobleman of the highest feudal rank will be the adjudicator. If there are multiple noblemen of that rank, the dispute will be decided between them by a simple, unweighted vote. In the event of a tie, the FACTION LEADER will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(14) May seize control of any ships that start the turn in a port inside a province controlled by anyone in their feudal chain (controlled port). Ships may not be seized if there is are units on board that are not controlled by someone in the RANK's feudal chain. Ships seized in such a way cannot be moved by the CHANCELLOR without the RANK's permission, unless they are outside a controlled port and do not have a nobleman on board that is in the RANK's feudal chain.
Penalties:
(1) Cannot hold another feudal rank except CHANCELLOR.
(2) Cannot swear an Oath of Fealty to another nobleman and cannot have any Vassals.
Inheritance: On the death of a FACTION LEADER, all Oaths of Fealty pertaining to the nobleman who is the new FACTION LEADER are instantly broken. The new FACTION LEADER takes control of all provinces owned by the previous FACTION LEADER, unless they were given away by a valid Will. The new FACTION LEADER retains possession of any provinces he controlled prior to inheriting the throne.

CHANCELLOR:
Requirements: Must have been elected CHANCELLOR
Influence: During Emergency Sessions called during his term, up to 5 Stat Influence +2, or the nobleman's normal Influence, whichever is higher. For every term of 6 turns or more that a nobleman serves as CHANCELLOR, he will receive a permanent +1 bonus to his Influence and a permanent increase of +1 to the maximum Stat Influence of his feudal rank. This bonus is cumulative for noblemen who serve multiple terms as CHANCELLOR. The in-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER. The post-term bonus does not apply to the FACTION LEADER or to any nobleman who ceased to be CHANCELLOR because he was 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 nobleman’s other feudal ranks.
(2) Unless otherwise restricted by the rules, the CHANCELLOR can do anything he wants inside the game except use console cheats, which may be used only as specifically allowed by the Rules. Edicts are only binding on the CHANCELLOR to the extent that the GOVERNING BODY chooses to enforce them.
Limitations on Powers:
(1) The CHANCELLOR must respect all settlement tax rates and build queues. With the exception of Prioritized Buildings, the CHANCELLOR is not required to build anything. However, if anything is built in a settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue. If no build queue is posted for a settlement, the CHANCELLOR can build whatever he likes. The CHANCELLOR may upgrade a province’s walls at any time unless such an upgrade is forbidden in advance by the nobleman who owns the settlement.
(2) No money can be spent on any construction until all Prioritized Buildings have been funded, unless the noblemen who Prioritized them agree otherwise. If there are multiple Prioritized Buildings, and not enough funding for all of them, the CHANCELLOR may choose which to construct first. Rule 4.3 takes precedence over all prioritized buildings.
(3) The CHANCELLOR must respect all requests for the transfer or deletion of retinue members/items, as long as these requests comply with the rules.
(4) (4) The CHANCELLOR cannot disband a unit in a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet if the owner of the a Private Army, Royal Army, city garrison, fort, or controlled fleet gives orders which prevent such a disbanding. This Limitation does not apply to merging depleted units, which the CHANCELLOR may do freely.
(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

3. GOVERNING BODY

3.1 –Sessions: The GOVERNING BODY 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. econ21 or TinCow can change the length of individual sessions at will.

3.2 – Proposing Legislation: During each session, noblemen may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other noblemen before they can be put to the vote.

3.3 – Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the GOVERNING BODY. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

*3.4 – Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of votes to pass and can permanently modify the rules in any way, except for rules marked with a *.

3.5 – Influence: Each nobleman’s voting power is equivalent to his total Influence, as defined by Rule 2.7. No nobleman’s Influence may ever be lower than 1. For the purposes of determining Stat Influence, a nobleman can gain 1 point of Stat Influence for each of the following conditions that he meets: (a) 5+ ranks of Command (b) 10 ranks of Command (c) 5+ ranks of Chivalry or Dread (d) 10 ranks of Chivalry or Dread (e) 10 ranks of Loyalty (f) 8+ ranks of Piety (g) 20+ total stat points (h) 30+ total stat points (i) 40 total stat points (j) nobleman’s name is modified by a trait title that bestows more negative than positive stat points (i.e. the Mad) (k) nobleman is married to a FACTION Princess.

3.6 – War: Except as allowed by rank powers under Rule 2.7, any declaration of war must be authorized by an Edict.

3.7 – 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).

*3.8 – Impeachment: The CHANCELLOR can be impeached and removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the GOVERNING BODY. Impeachment takes effect immediately after the vote is passed. After impeachment, a fresh election is held to elect a new CHANCELLOR, although the FACTION LEADER may also exercise his power to become CHANCELLOR at that point. The nobleman replacing the impeached CHANCELLOR serves out the remainder of the impeached CHANCELLOR’S term. All Edicts passed in the GOVERNING BODY session that elected the impeached CHANCELLOR remain valid, unless overturned by new Edicts at the Emergency Session that impeached him.


4. Armies

4.1 – Private Armies: Private Armies will consist of a minimum of 3 infantry regiments, 2 ranged regiments, and 1 cavalry regiment. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Private Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.2 – Royal Armies: Royal Armies will consist of a minimum of 4 infantry regiments, 3 ranged regiments, and 2 cavalry regiments. For the purposes of this rule, Generals’ Bodyguard units do not count as cavalry regiments. All regiments must be professional soldiers, not militia, unless the owner agrees otherwise. The owner of a Royal Army will determine who commands the Army, where it is to move (if at all), and whom to attack.

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

4.4 – 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.


5. Civil War

*5.1 – Declaration of War: A nobleman must make a Declaration of War towards a specific nobleman in a public thread before they can attack any of that nobleman’s armies or settlements. A Declaration of War applies to all noblemen of lower rank in the vassal chains of both the nobleman who makes the Declaration and the nobleman 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 noblemen in the vassal chain who are above the declarer or the target. Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, on the same turn that the Declaration of War was made. This rule does not limit movement in any way, nor does it prevent the target(s) of the Declaration of War from attacking the declarer(s).

*5.2 – 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 5.1, the nobleman who broke the Oath of Fealty will be considered the person who issued the Declaration of War, and the nobleman who chooses to enter the state of Civil War will be treated as the target of the Declaration of War. If a Civil War begins in this manner, any nobleman who would lose the right to own a Private Army as the result of the breaking of the Oath of Fealty will be allowed to retain ownership of his Private Army until the Civil War ends.

*5.3 – Ending a Civil War: A Civil War will end when all noblemen on one side are dead or all living noblemen on both sides publicly agree to a Peace Treaty. So long as it is limited to changes to the provinces, settlements, armies, Oaths of Loyalty, and retinue of the noblemen 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 nobleman’s influence or powers beyond those allowed by the rules, will only be binding if adopted by a two-thirds majority of the GOVERNING BODY at the next normal session. Individual noblemen 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 Loyalty that tie them to any nobleman involved in the War and by publicly declaring Neutrality. Neutrality cannot be claimed by a declarer, a target, or any nobleman who has been involved in a PvP Battle during that specific Civil War.

5.4 – PvP Battles: Whenever two hostile armies enter adjacent squares, a PvP Battle will occur, even if the armies have movement points remaining. If both players agree, the battle will be fought via multiplayer, with econ21, TinCow, or anyone they choose 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 Battle of Bern and the Battle of Trent and will be umpired by econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. 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 econ21, GeneralHankerchief, or anyone they choose. 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 econ21, TinCow, or anyone they 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.

[FactionHeir]

What's your take on my banishment suggestion btw?

[TinCow]

I'm not entirely keen on banishment as it's been proposed. This is the proposal:

The FactionLeader can banish lesser nobles (those who are lesser than Count) from Imperial lands indefinitely. If the banished noble is a vassal of a Count or higher, there may be some formal voting at the next session to end the outlaw status.

While outlawed, the character has to stay outside the confines of the empire or face imprisonment/execution if caught. He can only be caught if pursued, meaning sufficient men-at-arms are sent after the character. If insufficient men are sent, those may be lost. If enough are sent and quickly, they may just intercept the outlaw.

As such banishment order takes time to reach all provinces, he character can be assailed on the same turn only if within 1 province of the FactionLeader. Else within the next.

The FactionLeader of course won't endear himself to the nobility by doing so, so there generally should be some reason behind it. It will also require a minimum of 6 (or 5?) authority to pull off.

While it makes sense IC, it's very complex and would require a lot of extra work for the Chancellor. That in itself wouldn't be that big a deal, but I think that banishment can already be essentially achieved by a Faction Leader with sufficient political clout. If he's got enough control over the Faction, he can get the other noblemen to shun the 'outlaw' and he can have the Chancellor refuse to help him. If things get extreme, he could demand that every nobleman declare war on the 'outlaw' and he could even declare war himself. Under those circumstances, the person would almost certainly be defeated if they stood their ground, leaving flight the only remaining option... which is the same as exile.

The only difference I see with a true banishment power is that it allows the Faction Leader to pull off a banishment even when the majority of the noblemen, and even possibly the Chancellor, do not support it. I'm not sure if I like that. My concept of the game was to give people the tools with which to achieve power, but to make the actual achievement itself dependent upon their ability to play the political game well. Simply giving the Faction Leader a power like banishment essentially circumvents the politics of the game. It would be similar to giving him the ability to execute anyone he wants, unilaterally. While perhaps realistic, I don't think this is necessarily the best course for the game.

I don't think any role, not even the FL, should have absolute power over any other player in this game. Anyone should be able to resist the moves of someone else, if they are able to assemble enough support from the other players. The FL should definitely be the most powerful role, but it should not be so powerful that it can ignore the opinions of the rest of the players. Historically, Kings were always very reliant upon their nobles, as they supplied the men for his armies, collected his taxes, etc. If the King alienated his nobles, at best he would be impotent and at worst he'd be dead. Forcing our FL to pander to the rest of the players is meant to evoke this. The FL already wields a bigger stick and can bestow greater benefits than anyone else, giving him a major advantage in assembling a supporting coalition. I think giving him powers that directly circumvent the need for political negotiation will unbalance the game.

I think a lot of people are forgetting the FL's single most important power: the ability to become Chancellor instantly and without an election. The Chancellor position in this game has the potential to be incredibly powerful if used properly. A person who uses the Chancellorship specifically to help their allies and injure their opponents can significantly change the balance of power in th game. The FL get an automatic freebie Chancellorship, ensuring that at least once during his reign he can massively reward his friends and greatly damage his enemies. If that's not enough to get the noblemen to obey his will, then he doesn't deserve to have his will obeyed.

[Privateerkev]

I have a question regarding rule 2.3:

2.3 – Losing Provinces: Noblemen can only lose control of one of their provinces if they voluntarily give it to another nobleman, if it is conquered by an AI faction, or if it is occupied by the army of a nobleman who has made a Declaration of War against them (See Section 5). On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. If the nobleman has no valid Will, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the provinces. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the provinces.

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

[TinCow]

Say I'm a Count and supply a knight with a private army to conquer Provice X. The Knight conquers Province X and it becomes mine. Then, I give Province X to the Knight and he becomes a Baronet. Then, if the Baronet dies, he can just give Province X to anyone in the game? As long as it is in his will? IC, I think I would be very pissed off if that happened. That land would be mine, conquered by my vassel, using my army.

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

This leads me to a second question. Can you leave things in your will for avatars that do not exist yet? Like when Ansehelm had the convoluted Franconian heir fiasco? I don't think you should be able to. Maybe a rule that says you can only leave things in a will for an avatar currently controlled by another player. Otherwise, you might have people leaving themselves things in wills so their new avatar can get a "leg up".

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

[FactionHeir]

TC, your stance makes sense, but as outlined a few posts later, the banishment would only be possible against someone involved in a civil war, not against any noble out there just like that.
This is to allow the FL to take sides in who to support if there is strife within his own empire. The outlaw would have to be caught by the FL's troops or those who want to be in the FL's favor, not just by any unit, so there would be little work for the chancellor as people move their own pieces in line to whether they support the FL's banishment or not.


[edit]
To address PK's point, I think if you were to make an underage character inherit the lands, you must also name a regent, who is an avatar already controlled by a player, to take control over the lands until the heir comes of age. As TC points out, there can be power conflicts at that point (Civil War!), which is good.

[TinCow]

Hmmm... that is interesting. I think there's definitely an improvement there somewhere. I'm not convinced that banishment as described is the best system, but I would like to hear more discussion on it and possible powers that the FL could use only during a Civil War. Options could be things that force people to pick sides or that aid one side over the other. A very interesting proposal; I will think on it.

[Privateerkev]

Yes, he could do that. I would be pissed IC as well, but it's no different than hereditary rule. For better or for worse, the Baronet owns the land, the Count does not. The Baronet is the local Lord and his word is law to the local people. He also has the right of hereditary rule. His eldest son will inherit unless disowned, etc. No other nobleman can influence this directly. History is replete with examples of high-ranking nobles and Kings being mightily irked by the heirs of some of their vassals/competitors lands. Inheritance has always been a prickly thing, because it occurs after a person dies and thus puts them beyond the reach of direct influence. Thus it has always been a way for a bitter vassal to get even with a Lord that he disliked, even if he was unwilling to defy him in life.

If you want your vassal to name you the heir to his lands, then you had best make him happy. Either that or march over there and kick him out.

Yeah, that's why I made clear I would be mad IC, and not OOC. OOC, I understand it is what happened in history. I just wanted to be sure I had the rules clear. Thank you for explaining that further.

An interesting question and one we should explore some more. On the one hand, requiring such a thing will simplify the game, which is good. On the other hand, allowing an under-age avatar to be the heir opens up some political possibilities that might be interesting. For instance if Duke Nukem names his son, Nukem Jr, as his heir, but Nukem Jr is only 5 years old when Duke Nukem dies, the Duke's lands will be owned by an avatar that has not yet spawned. This makes them ripe for easy conquest and manipulation by other players, since Nukem Jr. won't appear on the scene to control things directly for some time. Perhaps a Regent would be named to control the province, or perhaps someone else would assume the position by marching his army into the settlement. That would then make an interesting situation when Nukem Jr. came of age and wanted his lands turned over to him.

Of course, that would only be interesting if Nukem Jr. was played by someone. Perhaps allow the Will to name an heir who is underage, but only if they are already assigned to a player.

I admit my personal exerience with KotR has left a bitter taste in my mouth with regards to this subject.

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

Ansehelm named an underage avatar as his heir. When that avatar came of age, Econ gave the avatar to his real-life son, Mini-Econ. Stig was visably pissed off OOC. Ansehelm then made one of Siegfried's daughters heir so the person she married would be the next Duke. I can tell you that these moves really caused a lot of frustration both IC and OOC.

Eventually Econ made a rule saying you should name a heir that is currently played by another player. If you name an heir that is under-aged, or of-age but unclaimed, then it would cause a Ducal Council to be called. So, in KotR, you can do it but it will be reviewed by your peers.

I would personally not want to see inheritance passed down to under-age/unmarried females/unclaimed avatars. But if we do, we should at least have some sort of peer-review process to make sure it is rare and not abused. In my opinion, what ever richness could be gained by allowing 5 year old Dukes is far outweighed by the potential IC and OOC trouble it could cause.

Of course, in this game, all of the vassels of Duke Nukem now have another option. While Franconians could only sit and stew over Ansehelm's move, Duke Nukem's vassels could simply leave. Which means a 5 year old Duke would have a bunch of territory but no one to run it. What would happen in that case? Do we pick a "regent" to be a caretaker? How would that work mechancally?

[_Tristan_]

I like the idea of a regency over lands bequeathed by will to an underage avatar, it will allow for some interesting interactions betwen players...

I already envision the regent refusing to release his grip over the lands or doing his best to send the ruler-to-be on military duty to prove his worth (and his ability to die )

[OverKnight]

An heir should be an active player. This isn't exactly historical, but it prevents the power structures from becoming too rigid in the game and gives players on the bottom hope that their day might yet come. This will help in player retention.

Players on the top would also realize that they will reap what they sow, so it might make them a bit less Machiavellian.

[TinCow]

I believe the game should be about characters accumalating political power. I don't believe that players should accumalate political power. To me, that is missing the point of the game.

In KotR, we saw two instances of a player attempting to "lock in" the Dukeship for his next avatar by naming an heir that had no other player. While I can see FH's point of view regarding having no loyal Swabians to name, it created a lot of resentment among some characters and even some players. And in Franconia, the heir situation was a royal cluster-!@#$.

That's a very good point. There are major OOC reasons for not wanting someone to be able to inherit their own lands. I'm sure we could write an elaborate rule about who can inherit and who cannot, but that would probably be long and confusing. Simplicity is probably what your original suggestion was: only living, of-age avatars that are currently assigned to another player can be made heirs. Perhaps I should make a separate rule about Wills altogether, removing the bits and pieces from the other spots that discuss them.

Here's a draft:

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. A Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

[Privateerkev]

2.X – Wills: On his death, all of a nobleman’s provinces and retinue are distributed according to the most recent valid Will. In order for a Will to be valid, it must have been posted in a public thread or PMed to econ21 or TinCow prior to the nobleman’s death. A Will provision is only valid to the extent that it names a living, of-age avatar that is controlled by another player as the inheritor of the province or retinue stated. A Will may name multiple noblemen as inheritors, so long as each province and/or retinue is only bequeathed to a single nobleman. Any provisions of the Will that do not meet these requirements will be invalid. Valid provisions of a Will will not be negated due to the existence of invalid provisions in the same Will. If there is no valid Will provision for an owned province, the nobleman’s immediate Lord gains possession of the province. If the nobleman also has no Lord, the FACTION LEADER gains possession of the province.

I like it. If a lot of people really want the ability to leave things to player-less avatars, I'll help with trying to close the loopholes. But I really really like this better.

This game is a balance of trying to simulate a historically accurate feudal system, while still being the most fun for the most people. That is why I like that the new feudal structure is strong, yet flexible. I know others have advocated for stronger ties between the noble and his vassels, but I like that the vassel can leave. Sure he might be attacked but he has the option.

I see the heir thing along the same lines. While there are many instances throughout history of kids being made the monarch, I fear it will cause for more trouble than it is worth.

If being historically accurate creates a situation where things might be less fun, then I'll vote on the side of "fun". And this is a "historian-in-training" talking.

[AussieGiant]

That rule has to go in.

I'm STRONGLY against people holding a position by using that mechanism.

At the very least if someone near the top kicks the bucket then a different "real" person should get a shot at handling the reins.

It's not historical which is something I would like to see therefore the only "trick" I can see is to make sure the eldest male is allocated as a priority and all male members of the line also.