KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[FactionHeir]

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

[Privateerkev]

I think that the new rule may be too stringent in that the natural born sons of the avatar that dies may well go completely empty if they are not player controlled even if of age. That doesn't seem fair nor historical at all.

Example: Grand Duke Nukem dies and has (a) son(s) (that is not taken by another player and of age). All his wealth and provinces and retinue go to his vassals or the leader rather than to his son(s). Doesn't seem to make too much sense unless the son(s) have mental traits.

Maybe limit the rule so that not everything can be bequeathed to the player's next character, but a province or two can, depending on station at time of death. And this to only apply if the next character is already of age and unassigned or nearly of age (14 or higher) and unassigned. Otherwise it will go to the player's nearest bloodrelative, or if there are none, the emperor.

The problem I see is that it will be open to abuse. A player could just leave his future avatar land and a title. I rather see it go to a new player, even if it means by-passing the "eldest son".

In KotR, we had players pass along IC information to their new avatars. I know you did it with Ruppel. The Order did it when their players had to take new avatars. And I was going to do it with Andreas von Hamburg. To me, this is ok. If you want to plug your new avatar into well developed storylines, I think you should be able to.

But leaving your new avatar land and titles is different in my opinion. It consolidates the power in the hands of a few players instead of leaving it open. This will create resentment both IC and OOC, as we saw in KotR.

I noticed TC has left out family tree politics entirely in his rules draft. I doubt this was an accident. Instead, it is up to the players to move their characters up the ladder.

Unless we want to add in family tree politics into the rules. But maybe that is something that should be RP'd IC instead of legislated OOC. Just my thoughts...

*edit*

What you could do, if you want to leave things to the eldest son, is this. Leave things to a third party. And then when the eldest son comes of age, the third party can then give everything over. This would keep the issue strictly IC using the mechanics already available. This would of course require a third party who is willing to do it. And he could always change his mind. But such is the risk of politics...

[FactionHeir]

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.
Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

[Privateerkev]

The player would only be able to leave a limited amount depending on his current standing, so whatever abuse there may be will be limited to one or two parcels of land and possibly a retinue. As you can see from my wording, there would only be very few cases where this would even be applicable and the character would also need to be on the tree to begin with for this to occur.

If you are a knight or a baronet, fair enough, you might not be powerful enough to leave your son anything. If you are a Grand Duke's son, you would expect at least something rather than be forced by a rule to give absolutely nothing.

Interesting. I would be more open to this idea if it was limited to really high ranks. I still don't entirely like it though... Like I said before, my experience with this was not a happy one. I'm leaning towards making sure all of the resources get rotated among the players. If we do your idea, it rewards a veteran player because he gets something a new player wouldn't. And while I think that veteran players are important, I'm worried it will create a "old boys" network among a small group of veteran players. Which will make for a less open and happy gaming atmosphere. I do agree your idea would be more historically accurate though. But I'm willing to sacrifice that so things can be more "fun" for everyone.

On another note, regarding the new rule draft, there seems to be a lack of change in the lower ranks in terms of knights only being allowed to vote if a vassal and possibly Baronets also being limited in army command somewhat.

Actually, it would be a nice touch if a noble of a higher station in the same private army (that belongs to an even higher lord) could take over command of it. Kind of like a Viscount thinking that he should be the leader of the army rather than a knight.

Well the higher noble says who the army commander is so that is somewhat figured out already. As for not voting unless your a vassel, I am certainly open to the idea. I do worry a little bit that it might leave new players with little to do. Voting is something that helps tie players to the game and I am hesitant to mess with that. Though, it would help bind the vassel and the lord closer together which some seem to want.

[TinCow]

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As for changes to the rank structure, I didn't make any changes at the low levels because I want to keep discussing them. I haven't seen any consensus on the matter yet, and I want this to be group decision making. Other people are free to draw up their own rule text to be discussed. That would probably be more efficient than waiting for me to figure out what is intended. I do like the multiple ranks in an army thing, though. Something along the lines of adding this text to Rule 1.3 might work:

If there are multiple players involved in a battle, all of whom are capable of commanding it and wish to command it, the player who's avatar holds the highest rank will be the commander. If the avatars are of equal rank, the CHANCELLOR will select which of the players will be the commander.

*edit* Realized the above rule should only apply to non-Private and Royal armies, since those have commanders already chosen for them.

Above idea temporarily suspended while I try to think if there's any situation in which this would actually be necessary.

[Privateerkev]

I think PK hit the nail on the thread with his edit. There is already a way to pass provinces and retinue along to a son who is not yet assigned to a player: use a third party. This occurred to me momentarily when I was thinking about some kind of Regent rule, but it would work perfectly fine here as well. All you have to do is give it to a third-party nobleman who you would intend to act as Regent until the true heir came of age or was taken by a new player. Then that nobleman could just voluntarily pass own ownership to the intended heir. However, since it isn't a mandatory trade, the 'Regent' could simply refuse to hand over possession if that's what he wanted to do. That would have IC implications that would be fun... and all of it without any changes to the rules. I would be perfectly happy to even allow people to pass things onto themselves via that method, because the added buffer of a third party who has absolute control over the final exchange introduces a level of politics and uncertainty that would benefit the game.

As long as the 3rd party transfer remained voluntary, I'd support this. While still open to abuse, this adds in a nice "check and balance" that has the added bonus of encouraging RP'ing and politicking. It was the direct handing down of resources from a player's 1st avatar to the player's 2nd avatar that felt icky to me. The "regent" could decide for himself whether to honor the noble's wishes. The burden would then be on the noble to treat the regent well before he died to help ensure the regent remains loyal. If the regent changes his mind after the noble dies, well then the "eldest son" would certainly have a large IC beef but all of that could be RP'd and could be exciting.
----------------------------------------------

I have two new ideas that are unrelated to matters of inheritance:

1.) What would you think of adding 1 influence to Faction Heirs? They get a +1 cap already. Chancellors get +1 influence plus +1 cap and I think FH's should get the same. The way I see it, there is influence inherent in being a "Prince" and the +1 influence would reflect that.

2.) A Grand Duke (and maybe even a Duke) would have the power once per Chancellor session to mandate that a certain guild in a certain province "must be accepted" if that guild is offered in a province the noble controls. The Grand Duke and Duke already have the power to "prioritize" buildings and this power is along those lines. This means a Grand Duke can say, "During this session, if Hamburg is offered a Merchant Guild, the Chancellor must accept it." And maybe the Faction Leader can dictate 2 "must accepts" for guilds in his settlements. That way, higher ranking nobles can direct the guild strategy in their provinces.

[AussieGiant]

Guy's,

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I know this part of the game is designed like the Mafia games but it is something that I think will detract from the overall situation.

I certainly liked the genealogy and family tree's and what they all meant in KotR, and that includes the adopted general's and spawned characters. I also think these provided great continuity and I also think most of us liked it.

The coat of arms by deguerra and the general feeling of belonging, where very much like the families and the Ducal and Royal son's, brothers and sisters (maybe we might strike it lucky with a few female players...playing princesses and queens would be great) that made up the feudal societies back then.

Even in this structured situation we all know there was certainly more than enough fireworks in the previous game. Therefore I would prefer to keep that part of it. If we leave the more advanced Civil War system in place this will allow for "options" but they are really "final" solutions if things can't be worked out inside the House and the family situation.

People being Grand Duke's one minute then a Duke the next and vis versa all the way up and down the hierarchy doesn't seem appealing or even remotely accurate.

I liked the fact that the Steffen's where a major part of Bavaria and that a few extraordinary nobles attached themselves to the family and provided great service. Likewise I enjoyed Arnold's inability to not continue the line and "hand" things over to the Zirn's through his sister after following on in his fathers footsteps. I would personally like to see these "great houses" established at the beginning, with the knowledge that we are providing a strong mechanism for fragmentation should there be enough support for it.

What is going to seem unnatural is people magically losing titles and their positions due to a mechanism that insitutionalises mistrust and double dealing. There was already more than enough of that going on in the first game...the idea of having very knife edge internal house politics running seems like it will be too hardcore.

Our relationships where already disfunctional enough without advocating it further in the actual rules.

[Ferret]

I think nothing should be left to the same players next avatar, that is just hogging power and part of the fun is earning what you have, not being born with it. However it would make sense if a Grand Duke or Duke left a single settlement to his son. If the player's next avatar is of no relation though then it is just meta gaming and should, imo, be avoided.

[TinCow]

I still can't get my head around the fact that people's positions will yoyo up and down based on what everyone else in that faction thinks about the leader, or anyone else in the faction for that matter.

I don't think there will be a great deal of yo-yoing simply because I think people will tend to stick with their chosen Houses for the most part. If you get a group of people together with similar IC goals, they will tend to want to work together in the long term. However, I do understand what you are saying. It is possible that the Houses will be very unstable, despite what I imagine happening.

One possible way to counteract that without completely scrapping the feudal structure system would be to impose some kind of limit on how often people can switch sides. Perhaps a limit on how often people can swear Oaths of Fealty, but with no limit on how often they can break them. For example, you can only swear an Oath of Fealty once every 10 turns. So, if you join a House, that House is the only one you can be part of for the next 10 turns. You can leave (break Oath) before 10 turns is up, but you won't be able to join a new House until the rest of your time limit expires. So if you want to leave one House and join a second House at the same time, you would have to wait until your 10 turn cooling off period is done before breaking and re-swearing. The longer the cooling off period, the less 'yo-yoing' we are likely to see.

[Privateerkev]

I like that the positions can yo-yo. It will force the upper-ranks to earn their title and not just inherit it.

Power... some people work hard for it. Some people get it as a "sweet-16 present".

As for how important "houses", "royalty", "lineage", "nobility", ect... are, that will be up to us to decide IC. I'm glad TC's rules don't dictate specific House structures, family tree structures, and bloodlines. We'll figure all of that out ourselves.

Maybe it was not as historic to have the nobles yo-yo up and down based on fickle vassals, but it might be a lot more fun. Quite frankly, I believe we had some "weak" Dukes in KotR. And for the most part, they were "weak" because they weren't online much, or felt that they could treat their vassals crappy because there were few consequences. Having the "oaths of fealty" become "breakable", solves a lot of those problems. Is the Duke not online much and ignores you? Just switch to another. Is your Duke sidelining you for personal reasons? Switch to another.

Now, the noble's ability to declare war on someone who breaks an oath is a powerful counter-balance. Also, TC's idea on a "cooling off" period might help too.

[Zim]

I like the idea of requiring land + title being given only to an avatar that already has a character. The idea of having that character possibly be a regent for the leader's underage son is also interesting, since if the regent decides to keep the land a civil war could start between loyalists and supporters of the regent.

RE: AussieGiant's concerns, I'm a little ambivalent. I really liked the relative stability of the House structure in KOTR, but also like the fluidity of the new system, where in year x the main power could reside in a single giant House, but 100 years later there might be many, roughly equal ones, as the old one fragmented. The possibility of a Civil War is supposed to make the idea of breaking fealty a weighty decision, but it will be hard to figure out what kind of difference that will make until we play the game for a while (and longer than a potential test game).

[Ferret]

perhaps that coud be an addition to the King's banish ability. If someone breaks an oath of fealty then they could be declared an outlaw. Personally my character will despise anyone who breaks an oath.

[Ramses II CP]

I think the threat of civil war will deter yo-yo'ing. I doubt people are going to willingly let go their Grand Duke power so that Baronet X can go seek his fortune elsewhere. A guy at the top only has to smack one little guy down to keep the rest in line, or cause them to at least make a well developed move with a better chance of success.

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

[Privateerkev]

Additionally if you develop a reputation for swearing an oath and then not keeping it, how many people are going to want your fealty? Characters that get involved in yo-yo'ing will not be long for the world.

That's a good point. I like the fact that you can "refuse" someone's oath. There might be some yo-yo'ing in the beginning but I predict a lot of players will want stability and will create that atmosphere. Sure, we'll get a rebel now and then like Wolfgang or Jan, but their success will be limited unless they do it at the right time and place.

[Zim]

I have a question about how the game will start.

Chances are on turn one, barring a few scarce faction + mod combinations, we'll have a fairly small number of players lucky enough to receive a starting FM and probably a territory. Since we're implementing recruitable generals from the start, and TinCow expects to get a large number of players into it in the beginning, we are likely to quickly end up with a lot of avatars with no land and no title.

It seems early on people will try to attach themselves to someone with a title and land, in the hopes of becoming a baronet themselves. So say players x,y, and z all swear an oath of fealty to player q. Soon enough, perhaps thanks to a friendly Chancellor willing to give q troops to use, players x,y,z have all conquered land and become baronet. This allows q to become a baron, but if q wants to raise any higher he needs another baron (if I understand correctly) to swear fealty to him. So he needs one of his baronets to swear fealty to another to raise the other vassal to the level of baron, so that q can become a viscount or whatever the next rank is. To do this that player will have to break his oath to q to swear fealty to their comrade, who is still a vassal to q. This would go on, with the now nascent House fluctuating a bit as it absorbed members outside of the 4 originals, or maybe lost a couple. Eventually something kind of stable might emerge.

If that makes any sense, my concern is basically that it seems the early game will see a lot of breaking of oaths, something I'd hope to be rather rare. I guess the alternative is a decent number of the starting knights avoiding oaths at the start, until they see where they'll fit in their new feudal chain, or maybe independent knights will be lucky enough to get resources from whoever is the first Chancellor to conquer their own territory.

I'm just wondering what the best way to absorb a lot of starting players will be...

[Privateerkev]

I have a question about how the game will start.

Chances are on turn one, barring a few scarce faction + mod combinations, we'll have a fairly small number of players lucky enough to receive a starting FM and probably a territory. Since we're implementing recruitable generals from the start, and TinCow expects to get a large number of players into it in the beginning, we are likely to quickly end up with a lot of avatars with no land and no title.

It seems early on people will try to attach themselves to someone with a title and land, in the hopes of becoming a baronet themselves. So say players x,y, and z all swear an oath of fealty to player q. Soon enough, perhaps thanks to a friendly Chancellor willing to give q troops to use, players x,y,z have all conquered land and become baronet. This allows q to become a baron, but if q wants to raise any higher he needs another baron (if I understand correctly) to swear fealty to him. So he needs one of his baronets to swear fealty to another to raise the other vassal to the level of baron, so that q can become a viscount or whatever the next rank is. To do this that player will have to break his oath to q to swear fealty to their comrade, who is still a vassal to q. This would go on, with the now nascent House fluctuating a bit as it absorbed members outside of the 4 originals, or maybe lost a couple. Eventually something kind of stable might emerge.

If that makes any sense, my concern is basically that it seems the early game will see a lot of breaking of oaths, something I'd hope to be rather rare. I guess the alternative is a decent number of the starting knights avoiding oaths at the start, until they see where they'll fit in their new feudal chain, or maybe independent knights will be lucky enough to get resources from whoever is the first Chancellor to conquer their own territory.

I'm just wondering what the best way to absorb a lot of starting players will be...

You bring up a good point. And that is that there will be a lot of "voluntary" oath breaking. To create the feudal chain, nobles will have to break and then re-make their oaths. Since TC is considering a "cooling off" period with regards to making oaths, perhaps that can be waived when both parties want the oath to be broken. That would allow the House to be flexible and grow. Also it will allow it to absorb losses of players/characters quickly and reform as needed.

I have a separate question about the beginning of the game. If you can't run for Chancellor as a knight, and oaths are frozen during "governing body" sessions, does that mean that the first Chancellor has to come from the starting baronets that Econ picks? I'm assuming we will start off with the first "governing body" session. So the first session will have a few baronets and a bunch of knights. Actually, if there are no RBG's recruited yet, will there be no knights at all? Except if there are more avatars than territories in the beginning of a game of course. Then there will be one or two knights. So, is there a "generic elector" option?

Or will the first "governing body" session only be attended by a few players while the rest of us watch and wait for our RBG's to spawn?

[TinCow]

Knights could simply refrain from swearing an oath until they find a nobleman who is willing to give them a province or an army command. In the beginning, the only people with military power are going to be the Faction Leader, the Faction Heir, and the Chancellor. There's not going to be much pandering to the starting Baronets because those Baronets can't give you much of anything. It's more likely that people would seek to buddy up to the three people (two if the FL or FH becomes the first Chancellor) with power. And of those three people, the FL can't even have vassals. It's likely that the FL would simply end up conquering a couple provinces himself and them handing them out to Knights to create independent Baronets who are not vassals to anyone. Better for the FL to have people in his debt than in the debt of other nobles. This is doubly true if the FL is the first Chancellor, since he'll have essentially all the military power in the game.

Yeah, it may be a bit fluid and improved in the beginning, but the beginning will have relatively few battles and movements, so it will go pretty quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if the first term was only 1-2 weeks. If it helps reassure anyone, I plan on taking a recruitable general to start instead of a beginning landed avatar if it is offered to me. I have enough confidence in the system that I'm willing to start from scratch.

[gibsonsg91921]

Just think about how crazy the HRE of old was. So many principalities... dear God.

For inheritance, I think there should be a one-province and as much retinue as you want inheritance.

[Cecil XIX]

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

How about changing the requirements of Baronet and above to read

Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

Where x is the minimum number of nobles that a rank currently requres; one for a Baron, two for a Viscount and all that.

That would not make it inherently easier to keep one's vassals happy, but it would lessen the chances of a catastrophic failure the likes of which every Grand Duke under the current system would face if his Duke rebelled. Certainly there were Lords who had one or two powerful vassals that they had to listen to very carefully, but there were also Lords who had vassals that were only a threat if they banded together. Why not allow for the two extemes and everything in between? It would naturally allow for a greater diversity in the structure of the houses.

[Privateerkev]

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

How about changing the requirements of Baronet and above to read

Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least x land-owning noblemen in their feudal chain.

Where x is the minimum number of nobles that a rank currently requres. One for a Baron, two for a Viscount and all that.

That would not make it inherently easier to keep one's vassals happy, but it would lessen the chances of a catastrophic failure the likes of which every Grand Duke under the current system would face if his Duke rebelled. Certainly there were Lords who had one or two powerful vassals that they had to listen to very carefully, but there were also Lords who had vassals that were only a threat if they banded together. Why not allow for the two extemes and everything in between? It would naturally allow for a greater diversity in the structure of the houses.

Ok, are you trying to say it doesn't matter what ranks the vassals are? Like, a Grand Duke only needs 6 vassals in your system? And they could be any rank as long as they own land? So, in your system, there could be a Grand Duke and 6 Baronets?

[TinCow]

Tincow, when you were making the rules for the Feudal Ranks did you have any alternative ideas on what the requirements would be? If so, could you discuss them?

The only other hierarchy I had down was the one I mentioned earlier:

Grand Duke requires 2 Dukes.
Duke requires 1 Marquess
Marquess requires 1 Count
Count requires 1 Baron.

The ranks of Baronet and Viscount did not exist in that system. It was easier to get to Duke, but the Duke wasn't quite as powerful as the current Duke is. It was also much, much harder to get to Grand Duke, as it required a total of 9 people in one House (2 Barons, 2 Counts, 2 Marquesses, 2 Dukes, 1 Grand Duke). It was an acceptable system, but I think the current one is slightly more balanced. There's still more work to be done, though. A lot of flaws have already been pointed out, particularly regarding the Faction Leader. If someone thinks they can come up with a better balance of requirements and powers/penalties, I would very much like to see it. I did not expect my 7 rank tier to be adopted as-is.

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank. For instance, if we compared a House led by a Duke to two Houses led by Viscounts. Both require 6 people, but they would have different abilities. The Ducal House would probably triumph, though, because they would have 4 Private Armies to the Viscount Houses' 2 Private Armies. Thus, in pure military strength a Ducal House of 6 people can field as many Private Armies as two Count led Houses totaling 8 people. That doesn't even take into account all the extra abilities that the Ducal House will have that their competitors do not. Is this reasonable? Should the Ducal House of 6 have that much of an advantage over two allied Houses of 4 people each?

Thinking about stuff like this might help us work out what the proper balance should be.

[Ignoramus]

Regarding the wills of vassals, I really am against them being able to bequeath their land at will. In reality, they hold their land of the lord and it's ultimately their lord's. If they die and have natural sons, they should be able to pass their land on to them. But if they don't, then the land should revert back to their lord.

[FactionHeir]

Cecil's idea was what I was about to propose regarding yo-yoing. The number requires could be say 2 larger (at GD level) if they are all baronets and 1 larger if there is nothing else above a baron to balance it out and create incentive to have higher nobles in your lands. It would also eliminate the problem with the broken chain: one noble in the middle breaks, the rest are still sworn to the higher lord but can of course choose to break away as well instead of having to break and rewear to the higher.

[Privateerkev]

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank.

Here is what a House led by each rank would have cumulatively. From this, you can mix and match various Houses to compare strengths of various alliance possibilities. Keep in mind, this is the bare minimum each type of House will have. They could have more.

Baronet- 1 person
1 Influence
no forces
one Edict

Baron- 2 people
1 Influence
2 stat Influence
no forces
one Edict
one Edict or CA

Viscount- 3 people
1 Influence
4 stat Influence
1 private army
one Edict
2 Edicts or CAs

Count- 4 people
1 Influence
7 stat Influence
2 private armies
one Edict
3 Edicts or CAs

Marquess- 5 people
1 Influence
10 stat Influence
3 private armies
one Edict
5 Edicts or CAs

Duke- 6 people
1 Influence
14 stat Influence
4 private armies
one Edict
8 Edicts or CAs
can call emergency session
can't be banned from "governing body" session

Grand Duke- 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

[Zim]

I think one possible issue doing it that way would be that we plan on bringing lots of players in early on using recuitable generals. With so many generals for the faction, it could be a long time before we see more than one or two marriages and births, at least until we expand far enough to trigger them. This would make it very difficult for early players to have an eldest son to pass their land to.

Regarding the wills of vassals, I really am against them being able to bequeath their land at will. In reality, they hold their land of the lord and it's ultimately their lord's. If they die and have natural sons, they should be able to pass their land on to them. But if they don't, then the land should revert back to their lord.

[Privateerkev]

We might actually benefit from a detailed examination of how much real power a House would have under different configurations of rank. For instance, if we compared a House led by a Duke to two Houses led by Viscounts. Both require 6 people, but they would have different abilities. The Ducal House would probably triumph, though, because they would have 4 Private Armies to the Viscount Houses' 2 Private Armies. Thus, in pure military strength a Ducal House of 6 people can field as many Private Armies as two Count led Houses totaling 8 people. That doesn't even take into account all the extra abilities that the Ducal House will have that their competitors do not. Is this reasonable? Should the Ducal House of 6 have that much of an advantage over two allied Houses of 4 people each?

Thinking about stuff like this might help us work out what the proper balance should be.

By looking at the power accumulated by each "type" of House, here are my thoughts. Keep in mind, that the work I did was only on the bare minimum for each House. Technically, each kind of House can have more people of each type other than Grand Dukes.

1.) As TC pointed out, you get more power by going up the ladder. A "Duke" House has twice as much military power as 2 "Viscount" Houses.

2. This is ok with me. It makes rank mean something. If the Duke House gave as much as 2 Viscount Houses, then a lot of people would probably just get Viscount Houses and make alliances. There would be little/no reason to make a bigger house where you have to rely on more people.

3.) Also, encouraging people to form bigger groups encourages people to Roleplay more. It will take a lot of work to make 7 people happy but if you can do it, the rewards are worth it.

4.) A Grand Duke House is an awesome power. 5 armies. Only 2 nobles have to sit out without armies. That is the lowest percentage of army-less nobles than any kind of House. Unlimited edicts and CA's which all 7 nobles can benefit from. 2 nobles who can't be banned and can call emergency sessions. This ensures that all 7 people have a voice and get their opinions heard. The whole House benefits from the ability to declare war on the AI. And one Edict or CA can be vetoed at each session.

5.) I say keep this pretty much as is. Maybe tweak it here or there. But having the powers increase per rank is a good thing in my opinion.

[flyd]

I'll make an observation on stability of houses. A house built upon the minimum requirements, where each noble only has one province and one vassal of one rank below him is unstable. If anyone in the chain rebels, everyone above him drops down.

However, the system, as it is, also allows tree-like structures. You can take smaller houses and combine them: if two counts get together, one can swear an oath to the other, bumping him up to marquess, whose house will have two branches. With any single rebellion, only one branch can collapse. If the marquess gets another baronet for the "weak" branch (the one lacking a count), he can get his viscount vassal promoted to a count, in which case his rank is secure against any single rebellion, although a collapse of one of the branches will leave him in a less stable position.

This branch was done at a count level as an example, but it would be possible to build a house that branches out at multiple levels, improving its stability. The minimum requirements as they are now are fine: it should be able to quickly build an unstable house, or put some effort into a more stable one, or to stabilize an existing one by adding branches. If a knight loyal to a duke gains some land, the duke may want to pass up an opportunity to bump himself up to grand duke and have the new baronet swear an oath to the existing baron (rather than the baronet). The duke stays lower in rank, but the foundation of his house is no longer a single baronet. Even better for the duke if he can find a viscount, who can swear an oath to his count.

I think people will be prone to building tree-like structures, especially if at the start, many small houses start up, which would end up getting combined at the top. Although the minimum requirements are fine as they are now, when trying to balance the number of ranks and their powers, it should be considered that people will not only build linear houses, especially if loyalty proves hard to find... and it probably will.

With trees, there are many, many different kinds of topologies possible. The successful player will probably be the one that best manages to balance stability with height of rank. The only thing that will be tricky to figure out in advance is how many vassals on average people will have. The minimum number of people for a grand duke is 7, but with any branching the number grows quickly. If everyone in a house had two vassals, to get to grand duke would require 127 players. Obviously, that won't happen, and most houses would fall between the extremes.

Further tradeoffs occur if you consider the powers gained. A more branched out house would get more armies and more influence in the votes, but a house that tries to build vertically as quickly as possible would get the special duke and grand duke powers sooner.

In any case, this makes for some very interesting strategic choices on the part of the house leader. The only issue is figuring out what will happen in advance so as to balance things properly. We want neither large numbers of unstable houses, nor a very small number of highly branched houses (and few players at the very top).

What kind of house would you build?

[Privateerkev]

What kind of house would you build?

Under the current rules, I'd say get 6 other people and go for a Grand Duke House as soon as possible.

Offer them the things a Grand Duke can provide.

Tell them that as Grand Duke, you can present any Edict or CA they come up with.

Tell them that you and your Duke will sit out and all 5 of the lower nobles will always have an army command.

Tell them that you and the Duke will say anything they want in the "governing body" since you two can't be banned.

Promise them all that you and the Duke will call emergency sessions if they want it.

Tell them you will declare war on the AI so they can get land.

Tell them you'll veto a piece of legislation they don't like.

Promise to prioritize their buildings.

Promise to use your voting power to pass what they want. Make sure you have the stats to use your 5 stat influence.

As Grand Duke, you will have awesome powers. Find 6 people and tell them you will use those powers for them if they will push you up the ladder.

It might not be the most stable, but if you use those Grand Duke powers for your vassals, they will keep you up there.

[Ignoramus]

I'd like the Grand Duke rank to have to be approved by the Faction Leader, considering the wealth of powers a Grand Duke has. It would create political wrangling, and allow the FL some sort of control over his big vassals.

[deguerra]

I agree on the one hand, but disagree because as I see it a Grand Duke is meant to rival the faction leader and heir.

I'm also still not completely sold on the entire rank system. Somehow, I think a few smaller regional groupings would be better than two or three massive houses. I have nothing to back this up, really, but it seems the little guys should be given a chance if they work together.

As such, I still think smaller houses are limited too much. Perhaps make Duke easier to gain, and Grand Duke harder? Or something along those lines?