KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[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.

[FactionHeir]

The leader's power should depend on whether we are aiming for a feudalistic or a democratic game.

In a feudal structure, they need support from the higher nobles, but through sheer force of being the leader have quite some powers that should be unique and/or powerful to make that role more useful than in KOTR.

[_Tristan_]

I think the FL rules are just right as they are... They reflect what really happened at the period...

Strong monarchs with powerful backing from their Dukes could hold the reins of the country pretty easily while weak monarchs could have whole dukedoms secessioning (?)

Take the French King holdings which at some point consisted of only Paris and its area...

[FactionHeir]

Oh, I just had an idea for an example:

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.

What do you think of this idea?

[Privateerkev]

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.

The way I see it, the FL will still have less military power than a strong Grand Duke. Which is fine. But I think the FL should have the same powers and control over his territories that a Grand Duke has. It might only be one "county" but I'm pretty sure his word there would be law.

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.

What's cool, is that it would have to be more of a negotiation. If the noble gets tired of baby-sitting the fleet, he can just leave the lord. Instead of it being a punishment, it would be part of a negotiation. Like, "I'll watch the ships now if I get that army command so I can conquer a county for myself later"

[StoneCold]

One input. This is regarding the attributes and retinues gain using spies and assassins. Since it is allowed to used console to move or remove retinues, maybe in this PBM any traits, retinues gain by the FL, through the action of the Chancellor will be transferred to the Chancellor? Or is that already stated somewhere and I missed reading it?

[Privateerkev]

One input. This is regarding the attributes and retinues gain using spies and assassins. Since it is allowed to used console to move or remove retinues, maybe in this PBM any traits, retinues gain by the FL, through the action of the Chancellor will be transferred to the Chancellor? Or is that already stated somewhere and I missed reading it?

On one hand, I do see a certain poetic justice with making sure the Chancellor gets the retinue/traits. On the other, it is a way to get authority which the FL will want.

Oh, I just had an idea for an example:

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.

What do you think of this idea?

It's certainly interesting. I'm a little worried that it will be over-powered. And could make the game unfun if abused. Maybe some checks on it. I don't know what.

[Ramses II CP]

I think it could be rather fun to be an exile, but I'd hate to see a situation where it was inflicted on someone who didn't enjoy it. Maybe it's better suited to a special circumstances OOC agreement beforehand. The two players see the disagreement coming, and the non-FL player agrees to accept exile before the in game dramatics happen, thus ensuring that the power isn't abused and everyone is having fun with it.

[Ferret]

I think it would be a god feature, but agree with Ramses that it should not be forced upon those that would strongly dislike it.

And Ramses, I have to ask, why do you always put the Egyptian smiley in your posts?

[Zim]

If it's going to require an OOC agreement then we probably don't need to have the power in the rules. If it happened it would just be something worked out OOC and IC between the players as part of a story.

I think it could be rather fun to be an exile, but I'd hate to see a situation where it was inflicted on someone who didn't enjoy it. Maybe it's better suited to a special circumstances OOC agreement beforehand. The two players see the disagreement coming, and the non-FL player agrees to accept exile before the in game dramatics happen, thus ensuring that the power isn't abused and everyone is having fun with it.