KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[Privateerkev]

Your experience needs to be avoided...the question from my side is...can my experience be had in this system?

Good question.

The thing is, while the rules kept Arnold as Duke for life, your House only achieved what it did because of the way you RP'd. Like you said, you developed things IC and maintained a good relationship with your vassals.

So, it is hard for me to tell if the success Austria saw was because the rules kept things stable or because of your role-playing. I would argue it was because of the latter more than the former. Ansehelm had stability written into the rules but his House was less successful in seeing it's goals realized.

Umm.. I don't think that answers your question though.

[Cecil XIX]

Your experience needs to be avoided...the question from my side is...can my experience be had in this system?

I would say that your experience could easily be had in this system. This is especially true of Becker's seccession, which under these rules would have gone exactly the same.

Edmund breaks Oath of Fealty, Arnold threatens Civil War if Edmund doesn't return, they negotiate, Edmund returns and Civil War is avoided. I suspect we'll see more incidents like that in the successor game, especially if the rebels time their oath-breaking right.

[TinCow]

Umm.. I don't think that answers your question though.

I think it does, because that was my experience with Bavaria as well. The only internal turmoil Bavaria ever experienced was as a result of the Heinrich/Otto alliance. You may have forgotten, but Mandorf essentially had his spot as Duke usurped because his underling become good pals with the Kaiser. Otto then took over the Duchy and the rest of Bavaria's history was pretty stable. Both this turmoil and the later stability and success were directly due to role-playing, not the rules. If stability can be achieved with RP in KOTR, it can be achieved with RP in the next game as well.

I tried very hard with Lothar to make sure that the lower-level Bavarians were given plenty of stuff to do and were treated well. While I created an IC justification for this, I did it mainly for OOC reasons. I was essentially becoming Duke for the second time, and I wanted to make sure everyone below me was still having fun, despite the fact that they were barred from further advancement. The reason I delayed on naming an heir was that there was no way I could find an IC reason for Lothar not to continue with hereditary rule, but at the same time I didn't want to exclude Warmaster Horus from the position because he had never had a shot at it. I eventually named Herrmann as heir when I knew the game would end with Lothar still as Duke. That solved my IC and OOC conflicts.

In the next game, I want to make sure that such conflicts never arise in the first place. I don't want to have to metagame to make sure that everyone else gets to have a shot at high ranks. Thus, I want there to always be options for people to gain power, no matter what circumstances they are in. The options don't have to be easy, but they have to at least exist. If the majority feel differently, I will go along with it, but that is my sentiment.

[Cecil XIX]

Silly of me to forget this, but the revised Rank system is an improvemen in my eyes. The only complaint I have is that it is irritating to know that in order to get more power you usually have to avoid getting other players to swear fealty directly too you.

[Zim]

Maybe as someone who spent virtually his entire KOTR career as a RGB (save two turns at the end I think) I might be able to offer a different perspective RGB rights issue.

I joined right when RGBs were being allowed and the debate over whether they should have any penalties had just started. Although I had the option of taking an available family member, I decided not to tread on another player's toes by refusing to take an avatar he had been grooming to take over when his died (not sure it worked as the player still seemed a bit miffed, but I figured I'd done what I could. ). Having passed up a chance for an FM for OOC reasons, I was pretty strongly on the side of the "pro RGB" players, and did what I could to support the position given my then limited understanding of the rules.

So I joined Hummel's rebellion to try to balance out the sides in the Civil War a bit, figuring it'd be fun to just jump right in to one of the most exciting parts of the game. I was never taken entirely into Hummel's confidence, but I had a lot of fun working out a defense of Flanders with fellow rebel deguerra, and getting in on the thinng with Martin Luther.

My first character died (winning a battle ) but I decided to stay in the same House (Swabia) to keep in touch with some of the players I'd intereacted with as a rebel. Swabia's Duke tended not to give a lot of input to other Swabians, and I saw a chance at a fun game helping Overknight to defend Outremer, so off I went. That part of the game was even more fun, and the first time I felt like my cooperation with my character's superior was a partnership. This kept me in the game until the end, and the fun I had as Andreas was a big part of why I decided to grab a character for the final battle, despite not being very interested in PVP battles.

I guess the point of this longwinded story is that my entire time in KOTR how much I had to do depended on either a lot of work by myself and comrades to find things, or my immediate superior. At no time did the system seem to offer me a lot of chance for advancement. Even as the "number 2" person in Outremer, Viceroy is a rank appointed by the Kaiser, and I could be passed over. Having no family ties, I had to work harder to establish relationships with other players. If I did attain the rank of Viceroy, I'd have little control over who got it next. Were I to aspire to the rank of Duke, I'd have little chance of ever getting it.

This was fine, as I always had a good time, and it wouldn't have crushed me to stay a baron forever. However, the thing I like about the new system is that it offers a lot of flexibility for a new player coming in mid game, if he is very active, to achieve a high rank eventually, or to choose to stay at a low one. I have no problems with with adding special powers (like the banishment one) to the FL and FH, or making the higher ranks more stable. RPing will also likely give an advantage to those with familial ties to other powerful characters. However, I dislike the idea of making a rule along the lines of "RGBs don't really own their land and can't will it to whoever they want". I think stuff like that will eliminate a lot of the fun for any new players we pick up who may not have a chance to get an FM unless they want to wait a long time for one to spawn.

Just my American, depreciating in value every day.

[Ramses II CP]

I personally favor more flexibility and instability. I haven't been chipping in on this discussion because I wanted to see the sides shake themselves out (And I was out of town), but I would find it very hard to accept that there is a set time to declare you are breaking your oath. If it is only allowed right before a Diet session then we'll end up draining the reactive passion out of oath breaking and turn it into a calculated position.

The way I saw oath breaking was as a a sort of sieze the moment decision. Your lord does something you can't abide, or you get an opportunity you can't refuse from another lord, and that very year you break away. If we have to wait for permission there is going to be a lot of stabilty where, IMHO, a lot of flexibility would make for a more entertaining game mechanic.

Just to make my bias clear, I don't give a fig about the historical accuracy of the system. We aren't going to have an accurate system simply because we can't model the brute power of feudal lords that formed the basis of control, so it's better to move towards a system that is flexible enough to be fun while not so unstable that Baronet can become a Grand Duke at an instant's notice.

Here's my suggestion:

1. Relax the cap on the oath breaking such that a person can break their oath once every five turns max. Anyone who does it so often is not going to be a desirable vassal anyway, while this does provide enough flexibility to escape a bad lord before they take benefit in the Diet from your vassalage.

2. Cap the maximum number of ranks a person can rise over a set period. If, for example, you can only rise 2 ranks per diet session then we will instantly stop the wild swing from Knight to Grand Duke and reduce the motivation for political oath breaking. This should appease the accuracy crowd a bit.

3. Base rank calculations secondarily on land at (req) +2 provinces. To become a Baronet you would need to control 3 provinces. This way if you gain 2 provinces you have to ask yourself if it's better to move to Baron by giving away one of them, or to conquer another and become a 'stable' Baron independent of vassals. Now we have a mechanism to defray the mass exodus of oath breaking without rapid rises and falls in status. If you break your oath without a civil war your land stays with your Lord currently, which means his rank might not fall.

For example:

Count Guillemot de Lyon has 3 vassals, each of whom controls 1 province. He himself controls 2. If all of his vassals decide to depart and form a new house he would only need to conquer 1 more province (Rank 4 needing 4 base provinces +2) to maintain his rank, and the most that his rank could fall is a single step even if all of his vassals depart, (Assuming he maintains control of the land).

If he had the minimum amount of land he would need to conquer 2 provinces, obviously, which is the intent of the rule.

The purpose of this would be to allow for oath breaking to have a role in the game, especially since a solo Count with 6 provinces to defend and only one army looks exceptionally vulnerable to being attacked, without causing wild swings in the ranks. Also the sudden aquisition of more land or vassals cannot rapidly raise your ranks out of control.

Another side benefit of this model would be that the Faction Leader and Heir are initially much more powerful than they will be after houses form and become stable, so we have a shift over time in the way the power structure works. We'll probably have that anyway though.

We'd want to make it clear in the rules that it's never beneficial for a Lord to dismiss his vassals, which I don't believe can be done currently anyway, just in case.

Thoughts?

edit: Also I suppose I should lay out explicitly that there's going to be a clear gamble per every Diet session for land based nobles. If you're the Count with 6 provinces above and you've been at that rank the whole session, but you strongly desire more political influence before the Diet you can attempt to organize a vassal based house and move yourself up 2 ranks. The only thing you lose is stability. The incentive to remain a land based noble will be slight but the option will exist to prevent those wild swings in rank, and there may be an IC role to play as a land rich, stable member of the nobility.

[Zim]

Just as a P.S. I greatly enjoyed my time in KOTR and would do everything (almost ) the same exact way were I to have another shot at it. I still appreciate the added flexibility of the new system, with more avenues of advancement. I feel it will prevent the lessening of activity on the part of new players we saw a some of in my time in KOTR, and that's why I feel we should avoid handicapping RGBs (which will likely go to new players later in the game).

[TinCow]

Ramses: Are you therefore proposing that when you break an oath, you lose ownership of you lands?

Zim: For the record, I plan on taking a RGB right from the start. I made these rules and I have enough faith in them to carve my own way in the world from the lowest possible tier.

[Ramses II CP]

TC: I thought that was the system we had in place. That when you break your oath your lands stay with your Lord.

I suppose if that seems harsh perhaps we should allow for a declaration of civil war from the bottom and top. It doesn't seem harsh to me because I expect most oath breaking will occur when another house offers you more land or rank anyway.

[Privateerkev]

If you break your oath without a civil war your land stays with your Lord currently, which means his rank might not fall.

If you break from your lord, you take the land with you. It's your land. If Michiel breaks from Guillemot, he takes Valencia with him. It would then be up to Guillemot to either accept it, or go and take it back by force. So, Guillemot would lose the vassal, any vassal under that one, and their land.

[TinCow]

No, that's not how the current system works. The only ways to lose you lands at the moment are:

1) Give them up voluntarily
2) Have them conquered by the AI
3) Have them conquered by another nobleman
4) Die

[Ramses II CP]

I also just realized that my calculations are off on the Baronet example. In my head I had it that Baronet, being the first rank, should be a sort of rank 0 instead of rank 1, with Baron being rank 2. I didn't say it that way, but that's the way it's meant to function, otherwise starting the land ladder is so much harder than the vassals ladder no one will attempt that way.

edit: Then definitely I would propose that under this system if you break your oath, you lose your land. Another disincentive to oath breaking and increased stability in my supposedly less stable system. ;)

[Zim]

Gah, in writing my longwinded story I seem to have made my point unclear. I believe the current system is much more flexible, and whatever type of character I start with will have a chance to obtain power if he has the desire and ability.

I just don't like the idea of adding penalties to RGBs that was argued for a bit ago.

Zim: For the record, I plan on taking a RGB right from the start. I made these rules and I have enough faith in them to carve my own way in the world from the lowest possible tier.

[Privateerkev]

I just don't like the idea of adding penalties to RGBs that was argued for a bit ago.

What's funny is that your one of the people who convinced me. And now I will advocate for the downtrodden RBG. It is time for you and I to renew our old call.

FOR FLEMISH CLOTH!!!!

Oh wait... not that one... This one!

RBG's of the world unite!!!!

[TinCow]

When considering the RGB issue, people should realize that a significant majority of people will have to use RGBs. Even large starting factions like France and ERE in SS 4.1 will only have a handful of family members at the start. We will then start pumping RGBs out as fast as possible so that everyone gets an avatar quickly. This will halt all births for a very long time. People may well get added to the family tree quickly due to MoH events, but if we end up with 20-30 players, it could take several months before new children are actually born, let alone mature, due to a far higher number of RGBs than provinces. Other than the people who get the Family Members who exist at the start, everyone else is going to have to use RGBs.

[Zim]

Depending on who wins the faction poll both can be ressurected.

RBG's of the world unite!!!!

What's funny is that your one of the people who convinced me. And now I will advocate for the downtrodden RBG. It is time for you and I to renew our old call.



Oh wait... not that one... This one!

[Ramses II CP]

So, another way to look at my proposal without altering the oath breaking land rules is as (The change is essentially only in the plus):

Baronet (Rank 1) (1 Knight vassal and 1 province or 2 provinces)
Baron (Rank 2) (1 Baronet vassal and 1 province or 3 provinces)
Viscount (Rank 3) (1 Baron vassal and 1 province or 4 provinces)
Count (Rank 4) (1 Viscount vassal and 1 province or 5 provinces)
Marquess (Rank 5) (1 Count vassal and 1 province or 6 provinces)

etc.

We could also do a sliding increase to the scale so that it isn't too easy to hold on to high rank, for example:

...
Count (Rank 4) (1 Viscount vassal and 1 province or 6 provinces)
Marquess (Rank 5) (1 Count vassal and 1 province or 7 provinces)
Duke (Rank 6) (1 Marquess vassal and 1 province or 9 provinces)
Grand Duke (Rank 7) (1 Duke vassal and 1 province or 11 provinces)

The basic intent remains the same, in coordination with the other bits I listed.

edits: Obviously vassal's lands count in the total number of provinces owned for the second calculation.

To re-explore the rise and fall in ranks, take a Marquess for example

Marquess X has a vassal chain and holds two provinces personally. One member of the chain decides to leave, taking with them their land. In order to hold his position the Marquess needs his 3 remaining vassals and their land, the 2 lands he currently holds, and one more province (In the sliding scale he needs 2 more provinces) he must conquer. This way we can defray the cost of losing a single vassal.

What if, as in my original example, all of his vassals depart? He holds only two lands and drops all his rank again, but assuming he can successfully prosecute a civil war against at least one of the departing vassals he can claim that land and defray his fall. This is why I originally imagined lands staying with the top lord.

[Privateerkev]

What your proposing is close to what FH has been advocating for awhile. Currently, the land issue is up for a vote in the Feudal Stability poll. The "no" vote for land being a basis for gaining ranks is ahead by 1. Ironically, you were one of the no votes. ^_^

Personally, I think it's fine to have the building block for rank to be 1 piece of land. But after that, I think it should be based on oaths. It will encourage RP'ing and discourage land hording.

[Ramses II CP]

Not ironically at all, I dislike the idea of ranks being based solely on land. What I'd like to see is a system that lets people get comfortable with increased oath breaking. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that we might vote in a system that is so stable it's not substantially different from KotR, where ranks were completely immobile (And mostly irrelevant) for the entire time I was in the game.

[Privateerkev]

Not ironically at all, I dislike the idea of ranks being based solely on land. What I'd like to see is a system that lets people get comfortable with increased oath breaking. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that we might vote in a system that is so stable it's not substantially different from KotR, where ranks were completely immobile (And mostly irrelevant) for the entire time I was in the game.

I feel your pain.

Ok, I think I see where your coming from now.

Basically, I would like your system less than our current system but more than a pure land system.

Also, I see you have been studying Guillemot's feudal situation. Any reason? ;)

[Zim]

I have no major objection to a sort of mixed system like Ramses is proposing. The only concern I'd have is that as our faction grew bigger, we might see a ton of people electing to take the titles of Duke or Grand Duke based on the land they possess. Ramses sliding scale would make this very difficult to do if you plan on having any vassals of rank at all (not likely given a Grand Duke who gained power that way would have to protect 11 provinces with one army).

[Privateerkev]

I have no major objection to a sort of mixed system like Ramses is proposing. The only concern I'd have is that as our faction grew bigger, we might see a ton of people electing to take the titles of Duke or Grand Duke based on the land they possess. Ramses sliding scale would make this very difficult to do if you plan on having any vassals of rank at all (not likely given a Grand Duke who gained power that way would have to protect 11 provinces with one army).

Yeah but Ramses hybrid will not let an oath-breaking noble take their land with (if I read that wrong Ramses, please let me know. A later post seems to say something different.)

I believe you should be able to take your land with you if you leave. Not being allowed to, funnels far too much power (and land) up to the top.

If the noble accepted that his vassal might leave one day, and take his little parcel of land with, then I would be more comfortable with a sliding scale.

It's the permanent accumulation of land that bothers me.

[Zim]

From this comment of his I think he intends for vassals to take their landd with them if they break their oath. If not then that would be a condition for me to support a hybrid system like that.

"What if, as in my original example, all of his vassals depart? He holds only two lands and drops all his rank again, but assuming he can successfully prosecute a civil war against at least one of the departing vassals he can claim that land and defray his fall. This is why I originally imagined lands staying with the top lord."

Of course, that's just another reason to support equal rights for RGBs regarding land ownership and wills.

Yeah but Ramses hybrid will not let an oath-breaking noble take their land with (if I read that wrong Ramses, please let me know. A later post seems to say something different.)

I believe you should be able to take your land with you if you leave. Not being allowed to, funnels far too much power (and land) up to the top.

If the noble accepted that his vassal might leave one day, and take his little parcel of land with, then I would be more comfortable with a sliding scale.

It's the permanent accumulation of land that bothers me.

[Privateerkev]

From this comment of his I think he intends for vassals to take their landd with them if they break their oath. If not then that would be a condition for me to support a hybrid system like that.

Yeah, I saw that but I wasn't sure. Which is why I added the caveat in parenthesis. I figure no one could speak better for Ramses than Ramses.

[Ramses II CP]

My preference is that lands not go with the lower nobles when they depart. TC, however, pointed out that this isn't the way the current system works, so I revised my idea to incorporate the way the current system works. Either way will be fine, but the first way is more stable while not making oath breaking impossible. I put up the change because I didn't want people to have to go too far to see the benefits of my idea.

FH's system isn't far from my system, the only core difference is the reasons for adopting our respective approaches. I do not want a system based just on land, but I do want flexible oath breaking. I couldn't see any way to get people comfortable with the idea of non-scheduled oath breaking (i.e. IIRC There was a proposal above that oaths could only be broken at each diet session or similar) without including more stability.

I like the idea that someone in a chain sacks a city, and immediately another member of that chain breaks his oath in disgust. I hate the idea that the situation above occurs, and someone has to wait 10 turns to do anything about it other than talk.

[Cecil XIX]

I agree that Electors should be able to break their oaths at any time. That should be combined with a cool-down period to prevent gamy exploits.

But I am wholeheartedly against preventing nobles from taking landswith them when they oath break. That would destroy the sense of ownership that we should be cultivating.

[FactionHeir]

For clarification: My idea is not that all titles solely be based on land but instead that land can also be used to obtain titles if you cannot find (sufficient) vassals.

While you may argue that this might make a player overly powerful, I must ask how likely it is for one person to conquer land after land on his own without support? Similarly, would this person be able to have his own army kept up by the chancellor all that easily?

The only way someone can expand rapidly is by having many vassals and thus many armies. Being a lord with land but no or few vassals means that you don't have as much political and military power as those that do and your lands are vulnerable for civil war pickings or AI pickings if you overstretch yourself which will happen eventually.

Thus, land ownership titles do balance out, especially with the current inheritance system. Afterall, wouldn't the FactionLeader just love to take all that land for himself with little opposition (and give it to other houses)?

[Ituralde]

I see that the inheritance of titles is strongly debated. To be honest this is something of a flavour thing to me. It won't make or break the game for me, but it would be nice to have. Another thing that was made more and more clear to me that the M2TW family tree mechanics combined with our massive use of RBG (which I completely agree with) will probably produce such a messed up family tree that it might not be worthwile to pay attention to it after a short time. I really would have liked my system, but realize that for it to function properly we would need a decent amount of births. This is unfortunately not under our control.

I also misunderstood the current inheritance system with all its implications and I agree that giving the FL the right to regain every land from lower rank nobles if he so desires can seem a tad harsh. I would still play with it, but I can understand where some people are coming from here and would not like to see their experiences repeated here. I'm not sure how much Civil War could prevent single persons from becoming too whacky, but I'm convinced they would be a good regulation even with my inheritance rules. Hate the FL, kill him!

I really think that with the Oath Swearing/Breaking mechanic and the Civil War there really isn't any situation that can't be solved IC to everyone's satisfaction. I thought quite long whether any of the rule changes are strictly necessary, since all of it can be modeled through IC roleplay very nicely. This goes for all situations that have been brought up as example against my inheritance rule too. Especially your example PK was quite far-fetched. If the FL can seduce all your vassals then something else went wrong in the first place!

My fear is probably that Houses won't feel like traditional feudal structures, but more along the lines of political parties. Where you join because of the same goals. This means that people who inherit land, but don't inherit the title with it will just wander off to some other House should they share similar political goals. I fear that we'll never see traditional House areas and this also decreases strife within the House.

So while I'm willing to drop the RGB issue I'd lie to see inheritance of titles. I would imagine it to work in a way, where a Grand Duke chooses his Heir, who can happen to be the Marquee too, by the way, so this is not saying that a Marquee is limited in his advancement or overlooked. And then, as an important step the Oaths of his vassals have to be resworn to the new Duke. Say the Marquee is not happy with the decision of having some upstart above him, he can just refuse to swear fealty and be his own House along with all of his vassals. Just as it would be in the current scenario where no titles are inherited. So the Duke would be interested in choosing a non-controversial figure as his heir that is accepted by all his vassals, even being one of his vassals, as this should work out best for the longevity of his House.

I know that all of the above can already be had with the current system but I would like to provide an incentive to see that happen more frequently. So instead of getting a title handed to you, you just get the privileges of it and then have to hold on to the position. So should all your vassals be pissed you at least have an army and can threaten to go to War with your former House with at least some backing. Should you not be able to resolve the situation until the next Diet Session though, all is lost for you and you become a simple Baronet.

So as said before, the above would add a lot of flavour to the game for me, while its potential downsides are not too harsh.


On the other topic brought up here, I am against titles being based on land. Be it solely land or some hybrid form. I agree with what PK said earlier. You gain power by giving away land to vassals, not by hoarding it. I think this is a good system as it forces people to interact with other players if they want power!

[Privateerkev]

Especially your example PK was quite far-fetched. If the FL can seduce all your vassals then something else went wrong in the first place!

Well, it could only take the FL bribing one of your vassals so it might not be quite as far-fetched as you say. If, under your rules, a Duke is immune to having his will vetoed but a Marquess isn't then the FL would just have to drop him one level right before he dies. Under your rules, I'm fairly confident a FL can find at least 1 person in the chain to break an oath in exchange for land.

Your other points are well taken though.

*edit*

But I am confused as to how your title system would work. Sorry but it's getting late and I'm getting cobwebs in my brain. ^_^

[Ituralde]

Well, it could only take the FL bribing one of your vassals so it might not be quite as far-fetched as you say. If, under your rules, a Duke is immune to having his will vetoed but a Marquess isn't then the FL would just have to drop him one level right before he dies. Under your rules, I'm fairly confident a FL can find at least 1 person in the chain to break an oath in exchange for land.

Your other points are well taken though.

*edit*

But I am confused as to how your title system would work. Sorry but it's getting late and I'm getting cobwebs in my brain. ^_^

But wouldn't this then strengthent the people in the middle of the chain. Maybe it's even the Marquee himself who foreswears his oath just so that he can gain more advancement. I'd see this as a plus, really. Also once you're Duke and you have written your Will and then it should be valid for the rest of your life.


Well my inheritance of titles would be more of a convention of sorts. I can't get myself to like the current system too much, where Houses will always loose power when one of their members dies, no matter in which position. By choosing an heir to your title within the feudal chain you encourage him to retake the same Oaths your predecessor had. Thus making any House more stable. But to not make it too stable there are no penalties for not reswearing those oaths. This goes both ways. A death resets all Oaths, obviously, but encourages the people to take the same oaths again.

I hope that made more sense. Like I said much of this could just become IC convention anyways, but I want to make sure!