KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[Ramses II CP]

I think the incentive to swear fealty has to be provided by the person to whom you're swearing your oath. If the mechanics of the game made it too beneficial to become a vassal the accumulation of power would be easy.

[BananaBob]

Although I did not participate in KotR I think the LTC would fit perfectly into something like this. One year per turn, vastly improved AI and unit re-balancing. You have to build a nation from the ground up etc etc, and you dont need kingdoms.

I cant wait to join in the next PBM

[deguerra]

Welcome BananaBob.

I should point out, however, that Gold Lands to Conquer also requires the Kingdoms expansion, as it adds many of the Kingdoms additions to the vanilla M2TW campaign.

Overall, I don't want to be the arrogant smartarse, but I really do think Kingdoms has quite a bit to offer in terms of making any M2Tw campaign better, and I must restate that I am all for using it.

[Zim]

Kingdoms definately adds a lot of things for mods, and the most recent versions of most mods require it. I am a bit worried about using it given Tincow's desire to get a lot of people in the new game. Also, Im' not sure it would be a KOTR game without FactionHeir.

Did the first game, the WOTS, use a mod based on RTW vanilla or BI?

Welcome BananaBob.

I should point out, however, that Gold Lands to Conquer also requires the Kingdoms expansion, as it adds many of the Kingdoms additions to the vanilla M2TW campaign.

Overall, I don't want to be the arrogant smartarse, but I really do think Kingdoms has quite a bit to offer in terms of making any M2Tw campaign better, and I must restate that I am all for using it.

[_Tristan_]

TC, great job on the the rules...

One observation though : about rule 1.4, won't the 24 Hour window be too short if we gather 30+ players to allow everyone to claim the save, play its turn and upload it ?

I personally think rule 4.4 should allow bigger contingent of mercenaries wihtout being ahistorical... Think of France and the Routiers in the 13th century which the French King so expediently sent to Spain, although led by some "French" nobles almost all the men were soldiers of fortune...

[FactionHeir]

One other thing I am wondering about is whether lords can take away their vassal's holdings. Historically, that would be possible, especially for lower nobility, and it would add some flair if used when there is a good reason (and possibly without provoking a civil war)

Say you don't vote with your lord, he can take your lands after the session but you cannot declare civil war as a result immediately or so.

[Cecil XIX]

The Faction Leader's permission should not be required to create a Grand Duke, as the point of such a position is to create problems for the FL.

My main worry is how large the houses will be. Flydude makes good points about how much Houses can vary in structure but the chains he describes may or may not be practical depending on the number of people. When we think of a one house we should remember that we are talking about only a fraction of the players in the game (Not to suggest that Flydude hasn't done this). That is why my suggestion makes the higher levels easier to reach, but not easier to keep. A Grand Duke may have to choose between the greater power of a straight chain and the safety net provided by simply having six Baronets.

To elaborate on large houses further, I believe geographical interests, philosophical beliefs and personalty clashes should make a Grand Duchy a time-consuming balancing act. It should not be possible to easily keep your vassals under your thumb by offering them a constant stream of favors. In fact it should be the hardest thing in the game, and if Privateerkev is right than it could be easier to stay a Grand Duke than to stay a Viscount. That would be terrible

Furthermore, I think that it would be odd if two nobles each had six vassals underneath them and seven provinces, but one was a Baron and one was a Grand Duke. That is a vast difference in power, even though they command theoretically a rather equal amount of money and manpower. I know this problem will still exist to a certain extent under my proposed revision, but it would be less extreme and more sensible. At the very least I agree that a more concentrated structure should have more power.

Ignoramus's suggestion about forts is intriguing, but leaves the question of whoose land such a fort would be built on. That makes me think of nobles owning forts (and troops) on lands other than there own, which is something I like very much as a bone of contention, a sign of submission, or one favor in exchange for another. A noble could also have troops occupying enemy chokepoints and resources! (Can you get trade income from resources with enemy soldiers on them?)

[Privateerkev]

To elaborate on large houses further, I believe geographical interests, philosophical beliefs and personalty clashes should make a Grand Duchy a time-consuming balancing act. It should not be possible to easily keep your vassals under your thumb by offering them a constant stream of favors. In fact it should be the hardest thing in the game, and if Privateerkev is right than it could be easier to stay a Grand Duke than to stay a Viscount. That would be terrible

Both are hard in different ways. A Grand Duke has more "carrots" (and sticks) but has to spread them out among more vassals. A Viscount has less "carrots" but has less vassals to keep happy. A Grand Duke will have more difficulty communicating to each of his people where a Viscount can have a tightly knit little House. Like a father with 2 sons.

As for allowing a Grand Duke to have 6 vassals of any rank, the House would benefit more if we stuck to a ladder

A Grand Duke House in a ladder would have at least:

7 people
1 Influence
19 stat Influence
4 private armies
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

Where a Grand Duke House with 6 Baronets would have:

7 people
6 Influence
5 stat Influence
1 royal army
unlimited Edicts and CA's that need no seconds
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session
can declare war on AI
can veto one Edict or CA

So, as you can see, the power difference is pretty stark. It would be in the 7 players best interest to push each other up the ladder and have each noble reach the next rank. You can of course accumulate far more power with a tree, if it gets big enough, but it will mean keeping a whole lot more people happy. The ladder method to Grand Duke is the most efficient way to keep 7 people happy and powerful.

I know your way is allowing for flexibility but I think people would go for the ladder even under your system because they can get more out of it.

[FactionHeir]

I'm thinking a compromise might be good.

Say that fealty is sworn not to the next person in the ladder/chain but all to the highest lord. So a Grand Duke (in a ladder case) would have the baronets, barons, viscounts etc all swear fealty to him rather than baronet to baron, baron to viscount.

However, the trick there would be that the person under the grand duke (and successively lower ranks) would still be able to command around the lower ranks that directly swore fealty to the highest, but the lowest can always appeal to the highest if they disagree, noting that the highest will generally favor the links in between rather than the lowest.

Another thought that crossed my mind was that in addition, it would be good if the ladder was not 1 of each (i.e. 1 baronet, 1 baron, 1 viscount all the way up to grand duke) but that each level requires a certain amount of the next lower. The problem with this pyramid structure would be the vast amount of players needed for the next higher rank. To solve that, we could replace people with land. So to be Count for instance instead of requiring 4 vassals, it would require having 4 provinces.

You may think that this means people who conquer a lot automatically have a lot of power. Yes, that would be correct, but also note that if you are a Count without vassals, the overall power you wield is negligible to a Count who has 4 vassals and 4 provinces. In addition, if you die, everything is lost and you can't exactly easily give it to someone to hold onto.

This method would also make ranks a lot more stable, so if a baronet drops out, not everyone automatically drops a rank, but everything is the same if you at least have the number of provinces available to keep yourself at the current level. Now, this may sound as if it would be the same, as a baronet lost means a province lost. I think we can say that if you lose a province/baronet, you don't drop a rank immediately but with a 6-10 turn delay, so you have time to conquer a new one or solve the dispute via diplomacy or war. It would also give some time to think about the future of your "house".

What do you think of the overall gist of the idea? Land instead of vassals required for the next rank.

[Northnovas]

Posted by FH
3. I think knights should not even have a vote, not be allowed to propose legislation, and only be able to lead quarter stacks to reflect that they are not really nobility or at the very best, landless nobles.

We just have to be careful on getting to technical following the feudal system. The voting is an important part of the game participation. Even though we will have recruitable generals if I was not an elector and had voting rights in KotR. I it would have been a long wait for an avatar and possible no involvement in the game.

As a knight you will not be battling all the time.

[Ramses II CP]

Perhaps have it so that a Knight must be under an oath of fealty in order to have a vote? That way there's a little more incentive for the bottom rank to swear fealty as well, and higher ranks can trade giving a Knight a vote for him voting along certain lines.

Say a knight favors CA 1.4 and needs to get a vote while a Duke expects to need one more vote for CA 1.7, he'll take that knight into his service for a minimum of the duration of the GB session so that the knight then gets a vote, and the Duke scores his extra vote. It would increase the political flexibility of the lowest tier of the system while also punishing them for not having a province, but making it possible for them to participate if they so desire.

[Northnovas]

Now that is thinking there has to be something there for the Knight and that would be the type of influence that could work both ways and utilizing the oath of fealty.

[FactionHeir]

Hmmm it could make sense with vassal knights having a vote, but why not just give them a settlement and make them baronet with it? I guess you could "gamble" and hope they vote your way... it certainly is an interesting proposition.

Army composition: Some limitations are good, just not too stringent as they are currently. If we play a Western faction, I do think we should have a knight limit (only those units that are actually knights) to reflect their rarity in those times.

Avatars do not start with a free command point, but most avatars start with either 1 point in GoodCommander or NaturalMilitarySkill at adoption/birth/generation.

If vassals do not vote as their lord commands, could this be then construed as an offense, as in breaking fealty? It would make sense IMO, or else there isn't much reason behind fealty.

[Privateerkev]

Hmmm it could make sense with vassal knights having a vote, but why not just give them a settlement and make them baronet with it? I guess you could "gamble" and hope they vote your way... it certainly is an interesting proposition.

I guess that is for when a higher rank does not have counties to give. He can only give his patronage and protection. (and armies). The Knight gets a vote. Seems like a fair trade. Obviously, the knight can get land later when there is some.

If vassals do not vote as their lord commands, could this be then construed as an offense, as in breaking fealty? It would make sense IMO, or else there isn't much reason behind fealty.

I'm mixed. On one hand, it limits voting freedom, on the other hand, the vassel could just break off and join another lord. Do you guys think this is a good balance? I'm not sure.

[TinCow]

Ok, here are my proposed changes based on what has been said so far:

Ship Control:
New power to be added:

(x) 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.

In addition, the Chancellor's Limitation on Powers #4 will be modified to read (change is the addition of "controlled fleet"):

(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.

The wording on this isn't fabulous, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Essentially, you can 'seize' any boats that are empty or carrying units controlled by your House when they start the turn in a port controlled by your House. You keep them while they remain in port, and while they are transporting your noblemen. As soon as the nobleman disembarks, the Chancellor can grab them back. So if you want them to be around for the 'return trip' you had better leave a nobleman on board to 'guard' them.

The reason I'm sticking in the 'on board nobleman' requirement for retaining possession is that there needs to be some way for the Chancellor to easily keep track of which ships belong to who. I can't think of any other way that makes it completely obvious. Regular military units can get confused and belong to anyone, but there's no way to mix up who controls an avatar. I'm open to better suggestions, though.

Also, at what rank should this power be given? Duke and Grand Duke only?

Baronet Inactivity Penalty:
New Penalty for Baronets:

(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.

One missed vote is too few. Even I missed a vote in KOTR.

Faction Heir Royal Army
Modified Power and New Power for FACTION HEIR:

(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.
(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.

Owns one ____ army rephrase
The words "above and beyond any Private Armies owned by their vassals." will be deleted from all army ownership Powers.

Destroy Buildings Power
The following power:

Can set the build queue and tax rate for their settlement and all unallocated settlements under their control.

will be modified to read as follows for every rank:

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.

Canceling Construction
New Chancellor's Limitation on Powers:

(5) Cannot remove a building from any build queue if construction has already begun on it, unless the owner of the province agrees otherwise.

I would like to see more discussion on the following things before I make any rule changes about them:
Changes to Knights and Lower Ranks
Rule 1.4 Time Limit
Agent Power

[Privateerkev]

Ok, here are my proposed changes based on what has been said so far:

Ship Control:
New power to be added:


In addition, the Chancellor's Limitation on Powers #4 will be modified to read (change is the addition of "controlled fleet"):


The wording on this isn't fabulous, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Suggestions are welcome. Essentially, you can 'seize' any boats that are empty or carrying units controlled by your House when they start the turn in a port controlled by your House. You keep them while they remain in port, and while they are transporting your noblemen. As soon as the nobleman disembarks, the Chancellor can grab them back. So if you want them to be around for the 'return trip' you had better leave a nobleman on board to 'guard' them.

The reason I'm sticking in the 'on board nobleman' requirement for retaining possession is that there needs to be some way for the Chancellor to easily keep track of which ships belong to who. I can't think of any other way that makes it completely obvious. Regular military units can get confused and belong to anyone, but there's no way to mix up who controls an avatar. I'm open to better suggestions, though.

Also, at what rank should this power be given? Duke and Grand Duke only?

I like it. Gives a vassel something else to do. Maybe in return for better duties and rank later on. I think Duke or Grand Duke is good rank for this power.

I would like to see more discussion on the following things before I make any rule changes about them:
Changes to Knights and Lower Ranks
Rule 1.4 Time Limit
Agent Power

Knights: I've weighed in on voting. As for provinces being stripped of lower ranks, want to re-instate the bonded/freecount system? It would add incentive to be on the family tree.

Time limit: I've already weighed in.

Agents: I think at a certain rank, the noble should get a Spy and/or Assassin to use against the AI. Control of Priests make sense at a high rank too. I remember the trouble Bavaria had with a witch. Duke Gerhard should have had the ability to order priests in Bavaria to go after the witch. This would balance out the Chancellor's ability to punish a noble by letting heretics/witches wander freely. As for what rank specifically, that is open to debate. Maybe mid-level and up for priests. And Grand Duke for Spies/Assassins. When your at the level where you can declare war on the AI, it makes sense to be able to start placing spies in their cities and sabotage/assassinate them.

I have a seperate question on forts/watchtowers. How do we implement it? If I am the Baronet, and TC is the Chancellor, who builds the fort? Do I get prior permission to spend the money from the Chancellor, play the save within the 24 hours, move my avatar to the spot I want, and then build the fort/watchtower? Or do I ask TC if he can build it, then he plays the save, moves my avatar, and then builds the fort/watchtower?

[TinCow]

I have a seperate question on forts/watchtowers. How do we implement it? If I am the Baronet, and TC is the Chancellor, who builds the fort? Do I get prior permission to spend the money from the Chancellor, play the save within the 24 hours, move my avatar to the spot I want, and then build the fort/watchtower? Or do I ask TC if he can build it, then he plays the save, moves my avatar, and then builds the fort/watchtower?

I think we should keep it simple and leave it in the hands of the Chancellor. If you want a fort or watchtower, you've got to his permission to spend the florins. Once you've got a fort in your province, you'll probably want to keep it garrisoned so that it doesn't disappear, since there's no guarantee you'll be able to rebuild it.

I see forts mainly being used as 'frontier' resupply points for friendly Private/Royal Armies. They are placed close to the border and staffed with regiments so that the Private/Royal Army doesn't have to march all the way to the city to get them. If people can assemble a long chain of forts that are 1 turn's movement apart, they could transport regiments a long distance without the need for an avatar and without risking the Chancellor's whims. This might be useful to distribute regiments from a castle to the city provinces of a House.

[Privateerkev]

What about giving the Faction Leader all of the settlement powers a Grand Duke has?

If we let a Grand Duke sieze a ship in a coastal province the Grand Duke owns, it makes sense to me to let the Faction Leader sieze a ship in a coastal province that the Faction Leader owns. That is just one example.

[FactionHeir]

I think maybe limit owned agents to 1 per owned settlement that has a guild that relates to a certain agent. It won't be easy to get them.

Time limit of 24h is fine for offense. Extendable to say 36 depending on how many battles there are possibly. If people want to fight a battle offensively but outside the 24h limit (i.e. they don't have time to do it) then it will be put off until the next turn.

[Ramses II CP]

Personally I think the Faction Leader is powerful enough already. Better to leave him reliant on the higher ranks for some abilities. The more he has to trust and work with the other high ranks, the larger the role they'll play in the game.

I like the rule changes. I especially like the idea of some poor nobleman in the game chafing at being 'left with the ships,' of which there are countless historical examples. It also means that coordination at a higher level is required for naval invasions that aren't supported by the Chancellor (Ones that expect to return anyway), which is realistic.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have a quick question... who is in charge of this crazy project? The head honcho? The big cheese? The taco grande?

If I had a comment I wanted to direct to the person or persons who are ultimately responsible for KOTR 2, whom would I contact?

[Zim]

Tincow and possibly Econ21 after he returns from his break.

[OverKnight]

After shaking off a bit of the post KotR blues, I've reviewed the rules for the second time.

Considering Rank Stability, I have to second the idea that rank requirements only be calculated once a Term, either before or after the Legislative Session. I'd say before, so Lieges are a bit more responsive to constituents. I'd also suggest that inactivity be taken into account at that time. Once every two terms seems a bit unresponsive.

I'm against Renting land, my thoughts on this are posted in the relevant poll.

Of course, I won't have a true feel for the rules until we begin playing.
If KotR is any indication, this new Charter will be a living document.

[AussieGiant]

I'm still not over the post KotR blues yet, but I'm around...

If we are going to yoyo ranks, then just before election time is the best point. No more and no less. At least that creates some stability for a period of time and allows for the rest of the game mechanics to work.

I don't think we should include land as part of the process. If we do, then just one province as part of gaining the first rank (nice historical touch) and that's it, and there is certainly no "renting" concept to confuse things further.

[Privateerkev]

My idea on oath swearing is this:

If both parties agree, then there is no limit to oath breaking/taking except when a "governing body" is in session.

You can always break an oath.

But if you break one without the permission of your lord, you can only re-make an oath once per session.

That way, the Houses can re-arrange at will. The vassals have a small measure of power but not too much. If you wish to be in no House, that should be your right. It's up to you if you don't want the protection/security of being part of an oath lineage. But if you don't like a House, and leave without the lord's permission, then if you swear to another lord, you can still leave, but you can't swear again until the next session.

[TinCow]

The first post has been updated again to reflect the most recent additions and changes to the rules. These changes are 1, 2, 3, and 5 from the Misc Rule Changes Poll, as well as the two changes recently discussed in the Test Game OOC Thread. Those two OOC Thread changes are the addition of this line to Rule 1.4:

Any player involved in a Civil War may give permission for another player to move their avatar and armies by posting that information in a public thread.

and the editing of the second to last line in Rule 5.1 to read as follows:

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, until the target(s) have been provided with one full turn's worth of movement.

[Ituralde]

Interestingly enough I am not too fond of too many added rules. I can accept them now, but have arrived at a stage where I could have lived without them.

On another matter, I have been thinking about the way the PVP battles are fought. From what I've seen the tendency goes towards the Custom AI battles made by TinCow. I realize that they're the best compromise between time needed and a reasonable realistic approach. Will they become the standard operating procedure or will the eventual game allow for votes?

I mean it'll probably slow down the game if you waited for everyone to cast their vote with which method the parties are allowed to use. How will this be handled in the game. I'm currently imagining a situation where two rivaling Viscounts decide to solve their problems once and for all on the battle field. Say they can't decide who is to be the leader should their feudal chains merge.

Now that would be something of an agreed Civil War. Most of this can be worked out IC and maybe both sides would make assurances that they will be chivalric on the battlefield. This is where I see the Custom AI battles to become problematic as the players have no control over the exact behaviour of the Armies. How would something like this work out under the current Civil War rules?

[GeneralHankerchief]

I've been thinking for a bit and going back among the Illuminati deliberations. From what happened post-Cataclysm in KotR, I think there needs to be a little extra incentive added to become Chancellor. You'll note that the final two elections of KotR were both rigged by the Illuminati out of a desire to first reform the Reich and then ensure their plan.

So, here's what I've come up with:

Rule x.x: Upon ascendency, the CHANCELLOR is immediately granted, by use of the console, a CHANCELLOR'S army, consisting of X units and answerable to no one but himself. During that time, the CHANCELLOR still controls his Private/Royal army/ies if applicable. At the close of his duties, the CHANCELLOR'S ARmy will be disbanded and an exact copy will be granted to the incoming CHANCELLOR via the console.

The idea of this is to first give the CHANCELLOR something of an executive arm in a decentralized society and also to give the lesser nobles of the CHANCELLOR'S house incentive to be nice (temporary command of an army while Count Dracula is running things).

[OverKnight]

An interesting proposal, but a couple of considerations:

1. A Chancellor can already recruit an army for his own use. He's likely to have his own settlement for some manpower and can negotiate to recruit the rest, if he doesn't own a castle for example, from friendly nobles.

2. If the test game is any indication, military expenditures are going to be huge. With so many armies mandated already, there is a possibility that there will be no florins for building.

[deguerra]

although less florins for building would give us a nice disadvantage over the AI. which as well all know needs all the help it can get. it's an interesting proposal.