KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

**Ignoramus** · 04-15-2008, 05:24

Just a suggestion: Perhaps the requirement for a Baronet could be reduced to a fort? That would help smaller houses form.

**Cecil XIX** · 04-15-2008, 06:04

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** · 04-15-2008, 06:19

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

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** · 04-15-2008, 08:14

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.

**TinCow** · 04-15-2008, 12:13

A land requirement is interesting and we should explore it. The benefits are as FH mentions: more stability and a well-balanced system as a rank based on land is weaker than an identical rank based on vassals due to the lack of more powerful lower level vassals. The negatives are that it encourages monopolization of provinces and provinces are the building block of most 'ownership' which people seem to like.

Another option is making multiple requirements for various ranks. For example:

Baronet:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.

Baron:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.

Viscount:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.

Count:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.

Marquess:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.

Grand Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

This would encourage cooperation between separate Houses, without those Houses having to break up their own internal structure. We could even come up with multiple 'OR' statements that are increasingly elaborate:

Duke:
Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals OR at least 1 Count, 1 Viscount, and 1 Baron as vassals.

**FactionHeir** · 04-15-2008, 12:24

I hadn't thought of the land monopoly issue to be honest. However during a diet session, you would want to have people supporting you and during the general game, you want to conquer (and that is difficult if you are doing everything on your own). In addition, if you have a lot of land and no vassals (or very few), your lands are unlikely to be well defended and people (human and AI) might want to go to war with you.

The multiple ORs was what I was thinking of when I mentioned pyramids. Basically a viscount would need 4 baronets and 2 barons to be a viscount, but then I figured 7 people just to be viscount might be too much, which is why I thought of land instead of people as that tends to be more plentiful (and we don't exactly want to have a grand duke running about before say turn 40 or 50).

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

It would be prudent to limit it that while you can give yourself a rank based on number of lands you own (if you are a primary holder and not a vassal), you cannot make your first vassal a count in this case without filling up the lower ranks first. This would limit abuse in the system too, i.e. in KOTR if you had free lands you would always want to have it filled with a count for votes unless that elector was really openly against you - now you would also have to take into consideration whether you really want to fill the who spectrum.

**TinCow** · 04-15-2008, 15:56

Adding on a rank by province ownership requirement via "OR" could definitely work. The question is how do we want to balance that? Should it be an exclusive province or vassal requirement? So, a Baronet who had two provinces would become a Baron? Three provinces would become a Viscount? What happens then if the three province Viscount gives one province to a Knight? The Viscount would get reduced to Baron due to insufficient land and vassals. This would be true for every rank in an even 1 to 1 substitution system. In order for a province-requirement rank to switch over to a vassal-requirement rank without being demoted, they would have to give away all of their provinces at the same time. Do we want that?

At the same time, I'm afraid allowing mixing and matching with a 1 to 1 substitution would be unbalanced. Take a Marquess level House of 5 people, for example. It would be easy for the Marquess to grab 2 extra provinces, when compared to the difficulty of recruiting 2 new noblemen and keeping them happy. Is it right to allow the Marquess to bump himself up to Grand Duke just by gaining 2 more provinces? I understand the provinces substitution would have the disadvantage of having fewer ranked noblemen within the House, but that could be circumvented by having the lowest level person take the provinces. You could thus have a 5 person Grand Duke House with the lowest level nobleman being a Count with 3 provinces. Since the Baron and Baronet bring comparatively little power to the House, that wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

**Privateerkev** · 04-15-2008, 16:25

Ok, I'm having some trouble visuallizing this so I'm going to do something that might help me, and anyone else trying to wrap their brain around this.

Here is the current system, which is TC's ladder system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

One swears to the one above him. It pushes a man up the ladder but is unstable.

Here is TC's original alternate system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Makes Duke easier to get but GD harder. Still unstable.

Here was Cecil's original system. It made the only requirement a number of vassals:

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Here is FH's idea which is a varient of Cecil's:

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

FD's thoughtpiece took TC's system but explored the possibilities of going for trees instead of ladders as a more stable platform:

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.

Here are visualizations of FD's examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

As you can see, trees are more stable but need more people.

Another of FH's suggestions has to do with all nobles in the chain swearing to the highest:

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.

And with requiring land:

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.

So, with this idea, you would need a certain amount of land to reach the next rank and everyone in your chain swears to you and you alone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

TC's reply was to make a series of OR statements in the rules. If your noble hit any of these qualifications, he got the rank:

Baronet: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Baron: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.
Viscount: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.
Count: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.
Marquess: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.
Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.
Grand Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

FH came up with a hybrid as a reply:

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Hopefully this will help people figure out what system they want.

**AussieGiant** · 04-15-2008, 16:35

Thanks for the discussion guy's.

From hearing all the points of view I'm feeling more comfortable about how this will work.

This system would certainly mandate that people in higher positions are active, responsive and "in the game", and I believe that will be a good thing.

So thanks for all the feedback. I'd regard my concerns as resolved at this time.

-edit-

And guy's...I think we need to stick with an either/or solution...this is looking like a legal nightmare from where I'm sitting :-)

**FactionHeir** · 04-15-2008, 17:08

Originally Posted by TinCow

Adding on a rank by province ownership requirement via "OR" could definitely work. The question is how do we want to balance that? Should it be an exclusive province or vassal requirement? So, a Baronet who had two provinces would become a Baron? Three provinces would become a Viscount? What happens then if the three province Viscount gives one province to a Knight? The Viscount would get reduced to Baron due to insufficient land and vassals. This would be true for every rank in an even 1 to 1 substitution system. In order for a province-requirement rank to switch over to a vassal-requirement rank without being demoted, they would have to give away all of their provinces at the same time. Do we want that?

At the same time, I'm afraid allowing mixing and matching with a 1 to 1 substitution would be unbalanced. Take a Marquess level House of 5 people, for example. It would be easy for the Marquess to grab 2 extra provinces, when compared to the difficulty of recruiting 2 new noblemen and keeping them happy. Is it right to allow the Marquess to bump himself up to Grand Duke just by gaining 2 more provinces? I understand the provinces substitution would have the disadvantage of having fewer ranked noblemen within the House, but that could be circumvented by having the lowest level person take the provinces. You could thus have a 5 person Grand Duke House with the lowest level nobleman being a Count with 3 provinces. Since the Baron and Baronet bring comparatively little power to the House, that wouldn't be much of a loss at all.

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

**AussieGiant** · 04-15-2008, 17:14

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

ah ha, now that's a good idea.

**Privateerkev** · 04-15-2008, 17:19

I am wary of tying titles to land (beyond the 1 land requirement we have already).

Like TC said, it might become easier to get land than nobles. You don't have to communicate with the province. Just keep the settlements happy and you'll have your title. I fear this would decrease role-playing.

I like that the high noble is in a precarious position. It forces him to be active and to communicate with his people. If a high noble just needed land, he could just sit on it and wait for people to come to him.

Under the current system, I think we found a pretty good balance of power/responsibility. The vassals give the noble power but the noble then has a responsibility to the vassals. If you bind the noble's power to land, you take away a lot of his responsibility to his vassals and he can just ignore them or treat them crappy.

Now as to making rank requirements a series of OR statements, I think something like that would work. Things will still work the same way but the House would have more options. Having Cecil's pure "numbers only" requirement might eliminate the middle ranks. But TC's hybrid of OR requirements might keep things balanced. It would still be in people's best interest to cooperate and push people up the ladder but they won't "have" to do it.

I'm noticing people seem to have an anxiety towards trusting people in the game. They don't want their position to be threatened by the whim of the vassal. To that I say, A.) civil war for oath breaking is a powerful deterrent that will act in the noble's favor, and B.) it will be up to the noble to apply carrots and sticks effectively in order to achieve high ranks.

Also, having a "cooling off" period between oath-breaking that is not approved by both members might help make things more stable. I would be much more in favor of this than tying titles to land. I do believe that all oath-breaking that is approved by both parties, be unlimited so the Houses can be more flexible.

**Privateerkev** · 04-15-2008, 17:47

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I was thinking of a non-1 to 1 concept. You would need the amount of land for a certain title equal to the number of lands you would have to hold if this were a straight chain. So this way if someone swears fealty, you don't drop a rank but keep it.

Then who's land is it if someone swears fealty? Under your system, a Viscount would need 3 lands. Say he wants a Baronet. A Baronet needs 1 piece of land. Does the Viscount need to get a 4th? If they give the Baronet 1 of their 3? Wouldn't that drop them to Baron? If not, would the land have 2 owners? Can land have 2 owners?

Viscount
-land
-land
-land

then becomes

Viscount
-land
-land
-Baronet
--land

Your proposing that it be:

Viscount
-land
-land
-land
-Baronet
-land

OR

Viscount
-land
-land
-land <--- this land shared between two nobles
-Baronet

See where I'm confused? Who would own the land?

**Zim** · 04-15-2008, 20:48

I'm not sure I like the idea of just owning land being able to get a character to a high title. As long as rank was tied to vassals there was a reasonable limit to the number of high ranks we'll see. If it takes 7 people in a feudal chain to make a Grand Duke, and we end up with 20 some active players at any given point, then we'll see no more than 3 Grand Dukes at any point, and probably fewer since the Grand Dukes have to keep so many people happy.

Land, on the other hand, does not have to be kept happy. As long as you can keep conquering it, you can keep raising in rank. This could result in a disturbingly high number of Grand Dukes as our faction expands (a rank that's supposed to be very rare and a rival for the Faction Leader). Suddenly the only cap on the number of Grand Dukes in the game is how many settlements our factions can capture. Since he can start wars, a Grand Duke could even conquer up to 14 settlements on his own, and pick the player he trusts most to take 7 of them to make another Grand Duke.

If we are using a land and/or vassals system, I think we should make the rank of Grand Duke much harder to obtain, so that it isn't easy for the mid level ranks to just conquer their way to becoming Grand Dukes.

**StoneCold** · 04-16-2008, 14:21

Just throwing a few more ideas out on the ranks system.

How about a suspension of rank changing when the game is not in governing session? A guy could break oath with his superior anytime, the superior will keep his rank until the next session and in the mean time settle the score with him. This could probably lead to players breaking oath just before the governing session though.

A way of preventing 6 players from going up the rank ladder to fast maybe to limit how many levels of rank a avatar can gain per session? Set a limit as above where rank only changes in each session, that only a rank is gain per term and you can only swear to someone of same rank and higher?

I really like the idea of a baronet being someone with just a fort on his lord's land.

With regards to the RBG, how many could be spawn at a turn anyway? Meaning there will still be a waiting list probably until the 2nd governing session?

**Privateerkev** · 04-16-2008, 14:33

I've noticed conversation slow down in here so I'll re-ask a couple questions I had posted and I'll put up my analysis of House structures for easy reference.

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.

Here is my analysis on the minimum power each type of House would have under the current rules:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Here is my take on ladder vs tree:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Here is my attempt to visualize the different House structures we are coming up with:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Ok, I'm having some trouble visuallizing this so I'm going to do something that might help me, and anyone else trying to wrap their brain around this.

Here is the current system, which is TC's ladder system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

One swears to the one above him. It pushes a man up the ladder but is unstable.

Here is TC's original alternate system:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Makes Duke easier to get but GD harder. Still unstable.

Here was Cecil's original system. It made the only requirement a number of vassals:

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Here is FH's idea which is a varient of Cecil's:

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

FD's thoughtpiece took TC's system but explored the possibilities of going for trees instead of ladders as a more stable platform:

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.

Here are visualizations of FD's examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

As you can see, trees are more stable but need more people.

Another of FH's suggestions has to do with all nobles in the chain swearing to the highest:

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.

And with requiring land:

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.

So, with this idea, you would need a certain amount of land to reach the next rank and everyone in your chain swears to you and you alone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

TC's reply was to make a series of OR statements in the rules. If your noble hit any of these qualifications, he got the rank:

Baronet: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province.
Baron: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baronet as a vassal OR at least two Knights as vassals.
Viscount: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Baron as a vassal OR at least two Baronets as vassals.
Count: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Viscount as a vassal OR at least 2 Barons as vassals.
Marquess: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Count as a vassal OR at least 2 Viscounts as vassals.
Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Marquess as a vassal OR at least 2 Counts as vassals.
Grand Duke: Requirements: Must have personal control of a province. Must have at least one Duke as a vassal OR at least 2 Marquesses as vassals.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

FH came up with a hybrid as a reply:

What we might thus think of is having land interchangeable with people to some extent. Say for instance (not based on actual numbers) a Marquis needs 7 landholders (of increasing rank) and 1 personal province. We can replace this with a Marquis needs 8 lands without vassals (8 controlled) or 8 lands with 1 baron and 2 baronets (4 controlled, 2 taken by baron, 1 each by baronets).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Hopefully this will help people figure out what system they want

And here is my question regarding tying rank to land:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**_Tristan_** · 04-16-2008, 14:55

I find FH's idea of land and oath allowing both to get an avatar up the ladder.

As to PK's question of what happens when the say Count gives land to his vassal, I have a proposition.

It would require some tracking but should allow also for greater stability.

It would require to differentiate free-hold Lords from tenants.

Let's say our Count owns 4 settlements and gives one to a Knight to make him a Baronet. With the rule as it is, it should drop him one level and make him a Viscount but with the land remaining in the same house I see no need for him to drop.

This would allow a house to gain power from the top rather than from the base. It could be used by the ranks higher up to even recruit members from other Houses (buying a rival house Baron with a Viscount title...)

Now let's say that this same Baronet breaks his oath, then the land granted earlier returns to the Count (a sort of loan...).

This would allow for more stable relationships between Count and Baronet.

The Baronet gains the use of the province for himself but in return he must remain loyal to his Lord or lose all.

I don't know whether the Count in this example should be allowed to wrest the land from the Baronet out of oath-breaking...

This would require to track which Baronets are free-hold and which are tenants for their Lords.

I hope this makes sense...

**Privateerkev** · 04-16-2008, 15:03

Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng

I find FH's idea of land and oath allowing both to get an avatar up the ladder.

As to PK's question of what happens when the say Count gives land to his vassal, I have a proposition.

It would require some tracking but should allow also for greater stability.

It would require to differentiate free-hold Lords from tenants.

Let's say our Count owns 4 settlements and gives one to a Knight to make him a Baronet. With the rule as it is, it should drop him one level and make him a Viscount but with the land remaining in the same house I see no need for him to drop.

This would allow a house to gain power from the top rather than from the base. It could be used by the ranks higher up to even recruit members from other Houses (buying a rival house Baron with a Viscount title...)

Now let's say that this same Baronet breaks his oath, then the land granted earlier returns to the Count (a sort of loan...).

This would allow for more stable relationships between Count and Baronet.

The Baronet gains the use of the province for himself but in return he must remain loyal to his Lord or lose all.

I don't know whether the Count in this example should be allowed to wrest the land from the Baronet out of oath-breaking...

This would require to track which Baronets are free-hold and which are tenants for their Lords.

I hope this makes sense...

It definitely makes sense.

The idea of owning/renting is certainly interesting. It would provide a compromise to the flexible/rigid discussion we are having. I would personally prefer a more fluid and flexible system, but if the majority of the players wish for more stability, then this is one way to achieve it. I only caution us against making the system too rigid. Otherwise, we'll just have KotR all over again with a few new rules.

I did think of a way to implement your idea. TC's new rules already mandates a seperate thread where each of us will have a single post that we update. On that post, we are to put our army and settlement information so the Chancellor has one place to go look things up. Land owning/renting could go there. The player with the lord could just put in the post all the land he "owns" and who is "renting". This would solve the book-keeping problem you saw.

**TinCow** · 04-16-2008, 15:18

I like this rent/own idea. I think there may be a solution to our conflicting ideas by allowing the Lord to choose whether the land being given to his Vassal is being permanently given or simply loaned. A proper balance of the rules would result in loans giving the Lord more rank stability, but fewer benefits, while a transfer of ownership would decrease rank stability, but provide greater vassal powers.

I'll think on this in more detail when I have time.

Originally Posted by StoneCold

With regards to the RBG, how many could be spawn at a turn anyway? Meaning there will still be a waiting list probably until the 2nd governing session?

No matter what mod we pick, we need to slap another one on top to make RBGs recruitable in every settlement at all times (through all levels of walls/castles) for 1 florin and with a regeneration rate of 1 every turn. With just 4 starting provinces and no conquest, we should thus be able to recruit 40 RBGs before the end of the first term, way more than we'll need. RBG upkeep should probably be reduced as well so that we don't bankrupt ourselves in our efforts to give everyone an avatar.

**Privateerkev** · 04-16-2008, 15:35

Originally Posted by TinCow

I like this rent/own idea. I think there may be a solution to our conflicting ideas by allowing the Lord to choose whether the land being given to his Vassal is being permanently given or simply loaned. A proper balance of the rules would result in loans giving the Lord more rank stability, but fewer benefits, while a transfer of ownership would decrease rank stability, but provide greater vassal powers.

What about making 1 "owner" = 2 "renters". That way, we don't have to keep track of which Dukes (and other ranks) have which powers. They would all have the same powers, but what is needed to get them will vary depending on whether you "give" your land away or "loan" it.

Here is an example:

Say I'm a Baronet with 5 territories. I would need 2 more people to be a Viscount under the current rules.

Under my idea, you could either "give" the land in return for fealty or "lend" the land in return for fealty. Say you could give your land to two people and become a Viscount. Or, lend 4 pieces of land to 4 people and then become a Viscount under my idea of a 1/2 give/loan ratio. (or give 1 land away and rent 2)

The only difference between a "owner" and a "renter" is that a "renter" can't leave the land in his will and loses the land if the oath is broken.

This allows for more stability because the Lord has an option to get the land back. But, this compromise rewards RP'ing by allowing lords who trust their vassals more to get the benefits easier.

Plus, we get away from tying titles to land. A noble with 5 pieces of land is still a Baronet. But that land is "his" land and he can decide whether to "give" it or "lend" it.

And we don't have to water down the powers.

Any thoughts?

**_Tristan_** · 04-16-2008, 15:41

I like the idea, PK...

This really makes a difference between having free-hold and tenants vassals...

One question though : in your example, what happens in the case of the Baronet's death ?

The vassals who have got title (land given) should retain their lands but what of the loaned lands ?

Could a will assign them as free-hold to the tenants ? Is it automatically made free-hold (which would lead to some IC assassination attempts on the Baronet) ?

**TinCow** · 04-16-2008, 15:56

One idea for rent vs. own could be that all ranks are treated exactly the same, but a person who has a rental land would not get a Private or Royal Army out of it. The rentee could still accumulate an army in the garrison or a nearby fort, of course. That would be easy to keep track of and easy to implement, while still providing a major penalty for use of rental over ownership.

**Privateerkev** · 04-16-2008, 16:01

Originally Posted by TinCow

One idea for rent vs. own could be that all ranks are treated exactly the same, but a person who has a rental land would not get a Private or Royal Army out of it. The rentee could still accumulate an army in the garrison or a nearby fort, of course. That would be easy to keep track of and easy to implement, while still providing a major penalty for use of rental over ownership.

I like that too. Seems like another good compromise.

Tristan brought up the question of what happens to land when the noble dies. Does the renter lose the land to whoever the noble leaves it to in the will? Or, does the renter automatically aqcuire the land upon the death of his lord?

*edit*

I can't see a case where a rental land would be denying someone a Royal Army. A Grand Duke or FL wouldn't be renting from someone. A Prince might but I think the Prince should keep his royal army if he is a renter. He is the Prince after all... ^_^

**TinCow** · 04-16-2008, 16:27

For inheritance purposes, the rental land would still technically belong to the Lord, so he should be able to dispose of it as he wishes in his Will. That's part of the 'stability' he would get out of it.

Regarding the Prince, perhaps he simply shouldn't be allowed to rent at all. No self-respecting heir to the throne would tolerate such a situation. Give him 1 turn after he becomes the Heir to re-arrange his affairs, then make all rental lands he possesses return to their original Lord and bar him from all future rentals.

**Privateerkev** · 04-16-2008, 16:35

Originally Posted by TinCow

For inheritance purposes, the rental land would still technically belong to the Lord, so he should be able to dispose of it as he wishes in his Will. That's part of the 'stability' he would get out of it.

Regarding the Prince, perhaps he simply shouldn't be allowed to rent at all. No self-respecting heir to the throne would tolerate such a situation. Give him 1 turn after he becomes the Heir to re-arrange his affairs, then make all rental lands he possesses return to their original Lord and bar him from all future rentals.

Both sound good to me.

Do oaths of fealty still work the same? Say a Baronet has 3 land. He gives one to the Baron and lends one to a Baronet. Does the Baronet still swear to the Baron? Or would the Viscount have to give both to the Baron so the Baron can rent one to the Baronet?

**TinCow** · 04-16-2008, 17:52

In order for this rule change to really be able to achieve the stability people want, we would have to allow for oaths to be sworn like they currently are. Restricting it to something like direct swearing only to the person who is renting you the land would vastly reduce the utility of such an arrangement. So, I say keep oaths and rentals completely separate. You can rent to anyone you want and you can swear to anyone you want, and whether the two have any relation to each other is up to the players. I'll write up some draft language later, but I also think we need to bar 'subletting' simply because it would start to make things very confusing. You can rent land to whomever you want, but that person cannot then rent it out to a third person.

I will probably implement this rule by bringing back the 'Bonded' and 'Freehold' distinction that never worked well in KOTR. In order to make it work effectively, I'll change the language of each land-owning rank to allow them to rent out property. I will then add a new rank called Bonded Noble whose requirement is renting a land and which will be held simultaneously with another rank, like the Heir and Chancellor. The Bonded Noble rank will work by overwriting a few of the powers/penalties of the nobleman's other rank. Technically everyone who wasn't Bonded would be Freehold, but since Freehold would be the natural state, I see no reason to include it as a separate rank. Thus we will have 'normal' ranks and 'Bonded' ranks. A Viscount who owns his land will still have the formal title of Viscount, but a Viscount who rents his land will have the formal title of Bonded Viscount.

The main question is... would this kind of arrangement be enough to staisfy the players who want more stability than the current system? This is definitely not as strong as some of the proposals FH and others have been putting forward, so I'd like to hear their take on it.

**Cecil XIX** · 04-16-2008, 17:54

I am against the idea of rental land, as it moves too far away from the idea of ownership. It's also too complicated. I'd rather stick with Tincow's original idea.

I especially dislike the idea that the Prince should be denied from gaining power in a certain way. Barring him from renting means there will be times when a noble will lose power upon becoming Prince, which is rediculous.

**TinCow** · 04-16-2008, 18:15

I'm going to put up a poll about this general topic. It's clear we're not going to find a solution that makes everyone happy, so I think we need to determine where the majority opinion lies.

**Cecil XIX** · 04-20-2008, 23:20

I think it is important that after we finish with the test game we should decide what mod and faction we're going to play as before we make any decisions about the other rules. Ideally we should be mimicing the system of government used by our chosen faction to at least some extent, and that should be reflected in the powers of the Chancellor, the Faction Leader, and the especially the fuedal rank structure.

**Zim** · 04-20-2008, 23:55

Judging from the mod poll it looks like we'll be playing Stainless Steel 4.1. It would be nice to have that confirmed and be able to discuss a faction, though.

Thread: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Thread Tools

Display

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Re: KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions