KOTR Postmortem and Next-Gen Rules Discussion

[AussieGiant]

Wow this is going at a brisk pace.

Ok so having seen Ramses wade in, TC's expert and steady hand, plus Ituralde, Zim and PK...I'm dropping the "stability, feudalism" position entirely.

And I have to say what Ramses is proposing is extremely positive to me.

By their very nature "Landed Gentry" are more stable than those nobles without it and have just a title. The idea that "Landed Gentry" have "less" to worry about regarding oaths and that their land gives them their position is excellent. Combine this will a "mid" to "lower upper" cap on how high a rank you can attain with this "Landed Gentry" solution is great .

If you want to get further than say a "Count" then you have to pursue a more fluid, less stable, "Rank" based structure.

Now I know I was just advocating against this but the way Ramses has outlined it so far I think it is doable. Given TC's Cray Computer brain is in the background I'd say the resident guru "could" come up with something that portrays these two system concepts without blowing someone's fuses out.

Ituralde's work on the inheritance system could be tweaked to cover any of the issues we can't work out in the hybrid concept, sort of like a "check" against an in balance we can't easily work out in the main ranking system.

As for the general change of heart...well hey, you're a convincing lot.

Let's embrace a free market, democratic feudal system that would make us all proud

[Privateerkev]

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

Ah I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. In the current rules, you lose your title when a vassal drops out. So, in your rules, I assumed it would be the same. That's why I was worried about a FL destroying a RBG led House. So, in your rules, if Duke's are immune to having the will vetoed, then it is good no matter what rank they drop down to?

*edit*

Or have I just confused two totally different rules... damn my cobwebby brain right now... ^_^

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

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

Well, we have it where you can pass land through wills so that can somewhat keep the Houses stable. In the test game, I left my land to my 2nd in command. If my guy dies, he gets the land and his people are still sworn to him. So, the House is still around. Sure they can switch it up if that is their choice. But it would be relatively easy for my 2nd to hold things together if he wanted.

[Zim]

I rather like the idea of titles being inherited along with land in the case of an avatar death. Otherwise Houses would be very unstable.

Maybe when a player of high rank dies the players under him would then make a choice whether to transfer loyalty to the new heir or not. If it became IC "custom" that oaths should usually move to the new heir, there could be IC pressure on players who reject their new lords without good cause. Perhaps it could even be required to break an oath to avoid transfer of fealty if the heir happens to be a son or other very close relative (i.e. brother) of the high ranking lord. This would give an advantage to members of the royal family while still allowing RGBs to will their land.

[Privateerkev]

If I'm hearing this right,

Titles will be passed down but no one has to follow them?

How is that different from what we have?

We can effectively do that now. I can say in the test game that Ig will be Count if I die. Of course he'll need a new vassal afterwards. It will only hold enough weight as others let it.

[_Tristan_]

I Another thing that was made more and more clear to me that the M2TW family tree mechanics combined with our massive use of RBG (which I completely agree with) will probably produce such a messed up family tree that it might not be worthwile to pay attention to it after a short time. I really would have liked my system, but realize that for it to function properly we would need a decent amount of births. This is unfortunately not under our control.

One solution to the Family Member/RBG ratio discrepancy that we will certainly face to accomadoate a large number of players could perhaps be resolved with some modding of the game.

I think it is possible to add or remove Branches on the Family Tree before starting the game.

Take France for for example, at the beginning of the game, the FT comprises King Philippe, Prince Louis, Princess Constance and two underaged sons, Henry and Michiel. Add to this 2 or 3 starting generals out of the FT.

We could change the game files to allow for more Family Members (thus more branches on the family tree) or even more starting generals.

This should give more weight to the Family memer thus alliviating Ituralde's fears that the FT goes completely unnoticed.

Add some princesses (or potential princesses) and you'll have some IC woeing ...

[Ituralde]

@Tristran:
I am really not a modder, but I really like what you're saying. I would be all for it. If you start with enough Family Tree generals from the start and already have some Princesses that would be nice!

@PK:
I think the only difference is that for this one round the heir gets the full title, meaning he will also get any Personal Armies and such, if they are associated with the current title. So there's more incentive to reswear your Oaths. Otherwise you might have a disappointed guy running around with his Private Army trying to chop your head off!
This is only one possible scenario. If the Heir realizes that there is too much opposition against him he can always just drop the cause and retire to be a low Baronet.

This system is designed to not have a House drop its max rank every time someone dies.

[AussieGiant]

One solution to the Family Member/RBG ratio discrepancy that we will certainly face to accomadoate a large number of players could perhaps be resolved with some modding of the game.

I think it is possible to add or remove Branches on the Family Tree before starting the game.

Take France for for example, at the beginning of the game, the FT comprises King Philippe, Prince Louis, Princess Constance and two underaged sons, Henry and Michiel. Add to this 2 or 3 starting generals out of the FT.

We could change the game files to allow for more Family Members (thus more branches on the family tree) or even more starting generals.

This should give more weight to the Family memer thus alliviating Ituralde's fears that the FT goes completely unnoticed.

Add some princesses (or potential princesses) and you'll have some IC woeing ...

Well bloody hell, we have to look into that!!

If we can start the game with as large and as populated a Family Tree as possible, that would be excellent and definitely the direction we should go in...big, varied families would be fantastic.

Where’s FH when you need him?

FH!!! Mate, we need some of your skillzzza.

[Privateerkev]

@PK:
I think the only difference is that for this one round the heir gets the full title, meaning he will also get any Personal Armies and such, if they are associated with the current title. So there's more incentive to reswear your Oaths. Otherwise you might have a disappointed guy running around with his Private Army trying to chop your head off!
This is only one possible scenario. If the Heir realizes that there is too much opposition against him he can always just drop the cause and retire to be a low Baronet.

This system is designed to not have a House drop its max rank every time someone dies.

Then what would rank be based on in your system? In the current one, it is based on having one piece of land, a certain kind of vassal, and some ranks require a time limit to pass. But, the time limit is just a draft so let's go with the current rules at the top of the page for reference.

If a House Leader dies, and passes his title, what happens when the Heir does not have the vassal requirement? The death would drop the whole line down a rank. So, what is being passed on?

Now you've said that your system would make the rank not drop, but wouldn't that mean that you then have to base the rank on something completely different than vassals?

See where I'm coming from?

Now, do you have it where vassals gain you rank but losing them doesn't make you drop rank? So, if it takes 6 people to make a Duke, your saying the Duke should keep it if 1 or 2 people leave? And when the Duke dies, he can name someone Duke even though his tree might only have 4 people left?

Please let me know if I'm reading your rules right.

[Zim]

I"m a bit sleepy so I'm probably not explaining myself well.

I think IC custom is more than enough to handle the problem in most cases, but that if someone wills his land to his character's son (of age and controlled by a different player, or course, as per the rules), his title would transfer automatically, and the player's former vassals would have to break their oath prevent it. It makes sense to me for a Duke to leave his title to his son.

One tricky thing would be deciding whether the son of a high ranking noblemen would be exempt from the (held lesser rank for x turns) rule to inherit a title. I also have no idea what the best way to deal with the situation of the now promoted son already being in a neccessary part of the feudal chain, since having him replace the now dead nobles second in command as the new Marquess or whatever would probably tick the guy off.



It was just a thought, and Ituralde's idea is likely better.

If I'm hearing this right,

Titles will be passed down but no one has to follow them?

How is that different from what we have?

We can effectively do that now. I can say in the test game that Ig will be Count if I die. Of course he'll need a new vassal afterwards. It will only hold enough weight as others let it.

[Privateerkev]

I think IC custom is more than enough to handle the problem in most cases, but that if someone wills his land to his character's son (of age and controlled by a different player, or course, as per the rules), his title would transfer automatically, and the player's former vassals would have to break their oath prevent it. It makes sense to me for a Duke to leave his title to his son.

One tricky thing would be deciding whether the son of a high ranking noblemen would be exempt from the (held lesser rank for x turns) rule to inherit a title.

It was just a thought, and Ituralde's idea is likely better.

Ah, I see it took a sleepy mind to talk sense to a sleepy mind. This makes much more sense now. (no offense to Ituralde, but his clear writing obviously could not make it through my sleepiness. )

But still, what do we do about the vassal requirement? If Duke A, names Marquess B his heir, and then dies, the Marquess will have no Marquess to swear to him. He would need a new person to swear to his Baronet (or in the middle of the chain) to push him up to Duke under the current rule.

Moving away from that moves us away from having vassals as an essential building block. If I can just keep my title, all because people die, that seems like it might make the game too static. And if I can make sure my son keeps my title, all because I die, that also seems too static.

So, if we do this, what are we basing titles on? Is it still vassals, and we just waive the requirement under certain circumstances? It sounds like something we would have to nail down pretty tight.

*edit*

Also I am confused on which oaths need to be "re-sworn". When the Duke dies, the Marquess still has his Count (who still has his Viscount) and so on. The feudal chain is exactly the same except the guy on top died so there is no Duke. The House is still there if the members wish it to be. Basically what is being proposed for that situation is that we just "call" the Marquess a Duke without requiring him to find an extra vassal. So, Dukes will start varying in how many vassals they have.

[pevergreen]

I think I have my head around it.

Lets say the Grand Duke dies, the Duke has a chance to inherent the Grand Duke title, even if he wouldnt have enough vassals?

just a thought I had, when the leader of the house dies, should all vassals have an option to leave the house for no penalty? I can see IC justifications.

The modding is easy enough to do to add starting generals. You get to choose attributes etc.

[pevergreen]

(Double post, i cant edit)

thanks for clearing that up a bit for me PK.

I second PK's confusion in his edit.

[Zim]

I suppose it wasn't a very good idea. I just understand the worry about a single player death destablizing a House. The reswearing thing would be more of an issue if someone from the middle died rather than someone at the top. Would the guys below the now dead avatar still be beholden to the higher ups? Or would the higher ranks have to do some quick bargaining to keep them in the House with a new oath? I'd like the House to stay together, with an actual oath breaking needed to break it apart. If this has been addressed I've missed it.

If the recently ascended heir was a vital part of the feudal chain then the top rank of the House would still drop, but he'd be propelled from wherever he is to the top, over the former second in comand (assuming the second wasn't the heir). For the life of me I can't decide whether this would be a cool opportunity for RPing (if the second was popular he could take the other vassals with him and threaten civil war if the heir claims his title) or an incredibly stupid idea and rotten thing to do to the second in command.

Ah, I see it took a sleepy mind to talk sense to a sleepy mind. This makes much more sense now. (no offense to Ituralde, but his clear writing obviously could not make it through my sleepiness. )

But still, what do we do about the vassal requirement? If Duke A, names Marquess B his heir, and then dies, the Marquess will have no Marquess to swear to him. He would need a new person to swear to his Baronet (or in the middle of the chain) to push him up to Duke under the current rule.

Moving away from that moves us away from having vassals as an essential building block. If I can just keep my title, all because people die, that seems like it might make the game too static. And if I can make sure my son keeps my title, all because I die, that also seems too static.

So, if we do this, what are we basing titles on? Is it still vassals, and we just waive the requirement under certain circumstances? It sounds like something we would have to nail down pretty tight.

*edit*

Also I am confused on which oaths need to be "re-sworn". When the Duke dies, the Marquess still has his Count (who still has his Viscount) and so on. The feudal chain is exactly the same except the guy on top died so there is no Duke. The House is still there if the members wish it to be. Basically what is being proposed for that situation is that we just "call" the Marquess a Duke without requiring him to find an extra vassal. So, Dukes will start varying in how many vassals they have.

[Privateerkev]

I think I have my head around it.

Lets say the Grand Duke dies, the Duke has a chance to inherent the Grand Duke title, even if he wouldnt have enough vassals?

just a thought I had, when the leader of the house dies, should all vassals have an option to leave the house for no penalty? I can see IC justifications.

The modding is easy enough to do to add starting generals. You get to choose attributes etc.

Yeah, that is what I thought he meant but I never could figure out for sure. I couldn't tell if he was advocating for vassals to be done away with as a requirement or to just waive the requirement under specific circumstances. From re-reading his posts, it seems he meant the latter.

What might be confusing things is the use of the word "house". We don't have "houses" in the rules because it is an IC construction. In the rules we have "chains". The chain forms a house. It could be 3 people or 12 people. Now, the titles are based on vassals but a house can be anything.

So, if the Grand Duke died, there would be no real inherent reason for all 6 people to break off. The only difference would be the Duke would now have no lord and would be the "head" of the chain. Everything else in terms of oaths would be the same.

[Privateerkev]

I suppose it wasn't a very good idea. I just understand the worry about a single player death destablizing a House. The reswearing thing would be more of an issue if someone from the middle died rather than someone at the top. Would the guys below the now dead avatar still be beholden to the higher ups? Or would the higher ranks have to do some quick bargaining to keep them in the House with a new oath? I'd like the House to stay together, with an actual oath breaking needed to break it apart. If this has been addressed I've missed it.

The current rule covering a death in the middle, is this. Say there is a Viscount, Baron, and Baronet. It is a 3 person House. If the Baron died, both surviving people would become Baronets. Because the chain would be broken. No one would be sworn to anyone with the remaining 2 people in a 3 people chain. Then one could swear to the other if they wished and one would be a Baron and one would be the Baronet.

If the recently ascended heir was a vital part of the feudal chain then the top rank of the House would still drop, but he'd be propelled from wherever he is to the top, over the former second in comand (assuming the second wasn't the heir). For the life of me I can't decide whether this would be a cool opportunity for RPing (if the second was popular he could take the other vassals with him and threaten civil war if the heir claims his title) or an incredibly stupid idea and rotten thing to do to the second in command.

Under the current rule, the 2nd down the chain would simply become the top of the chain. If the characters agreed to rearrange the chain so the "heir" is on top, that can be done IC but there is no current rule requiring it. Right now, you can pick an "heir" all you want but there are no rule mechanics to enforce the choice.

[_Tristan_]

One thing I have also been wondering is what happens if one of our nobles' vassals meets his untimely death at the hands of the enemy ?

Does our Duke fall one rank for having lost his Marquis or does he remain a Duke ?

I was thinking of House Austria in KoTR where the high mortality rate of avatars would make for a very instable house due to reasons having nought to do with internal political struggle...

This would lead to some houses ready to risk the lives of only the lowliest of vassals (whose death would not matter much) to keep the highest ranking avatars in power thus creating castes of high-ranking "political" avatars and low-ranking "fighting" avatars...

I may be all wrong in my reasoning but if I'm right in anyway that would be a source of unfun for me...

[Zim]

I think that is what is worrying people like Ituralde and me. It seems like a House has a potential breakdown every time some guy in the middle dies. for a three person House this wouldn't be a huge deal but for bigger Houses it would throw things in turmoil. I think Houses should be a little more stable than that, even if the rank of the guy on top changes from time to time.

The current rule covering a death in the middle, is this. Say there is a Viscount, Baron, and Baronet. It is a 3 person House. If the Baron died, both surviving people would become Baronets. Then one could swear to the other if they wished and one would be a Baron and one would be the Baronet.

That one I knew. I was just explaining my poorly thought out idea of what would happen if the heir receiving the title was a neccessary part of the feudal chain, preventing his getting the rank of his father (he'd replace the second in command for top rank, unless the second was willing to fight for it).

Under the current rule, the 2nd down the chain would simply become the top of the chain. If the characters agreed to rearrange the chain so the "heir" is on top, that can be done IC but there is no current rule requiring it. Right now, you can pick an "heir" all you want but there are no rule mechanics to enforce the choice.

[Privateerkev]

One thing I have also been wondering is what happens if one of our nobles' vassals meets his untimely death at the hands of the enemy ?

Does our Duke fall one rank for having lost his Marquis or does he remain a Duke ?

I was thinking of House Austria in KoTR where the high mortality rate of avatars would make for a very instable house due to reasons having nought to do with internal political struggle...

This would lead to some houses ready to risk the lives of only the lowliest of vassals (whose death would not matter much) to keep the highest ranking avatars in power thus creating castes of high-ranking "political" avatars and low-ranking "fighting" avatars...

I may be all wrong in my reasoning but if I'm right in anyway that would be a source of unfun for me...

Currently, it seems that yes, the whole chain would drop if someone died. They could reform the chain, and add someone in as fast as they could, but it would drop temporarily. Unless the player took a new RBG and just rejoined the House right away. That would minimize the drop effect. But of course the player wouldn't have to.

[Privateerkev]

I think that is what is worrying people like Ituralde and me. It seems like a House has a potential breakdown every time some guy in the middle dies. for a three person House this wouldn't be a huge deal but for bigger Houses it would throw things in turmoil. I think Houses should be a little more stable than that, even if the rank of the guy on top changes from time to time.

It's possible. Under the current rules, your House will go up and down unless you have extra nobles to form "branches". Like have a spare Baronet to plug into the chain if a noble dies.

[Zim]

You're a replying machine, PK. See above your post for an apparently just too slow response to your last post to me.

[Privateerkev]

You're a replying machine, PK. See above your post for an apparently just too slow response to your last post to me.

I did see it. As you can see, it is quoted in my prior post. :D

[_Tristan_]

So at one point, big "chains" will have to rely exclusively on "cannonfodder" avatars for their fighting unless the players controlling the higher-ups are willing to put themselves at risk...

What I wouldn't like to see is a case where I want to have a go at an AI army or city and be forbidden to do it by my Lord on the grounds that my death could ruin his position... This without having to resort to oath-breaking or civil war, my avatar in that case being loyal to his "chain" nevertheless...

This is where the fun would go for me...

[Zim]

I'm not so much worried about the whole chain shrinking by a link so much as it breaking entirely.

If players a, b, c, d and e are linked together in that order (e at the top) and c dies, do we get a pair of tiny chains consisting of two barons and viscounts (going by Tincow's new rank rules with the baronet cut out) or does the chain contract? I think a and b should remain part of the total chain through their prior oaths (which already tie the whole chain together in certain rank powers, like only the top noble being able to use prioritize building powers).

It's possible. Under the current rules, your House will go up and down unless you have extra nobles to form "branches". Like have a spare Baronet to plug into the chain if a noble dies.

[Privateerkev]

So at one point, big "chains" will have to rely exclusively on "cannonfodder" avatars for their fighting unless the players controlling the higher-ups are willing to put themselves at risk...

What I wouldn't like to see is a case where I want to have a go at an AI army or city and be forbidden to do it by my Lord on the grounds that my death could ruin his position... This without having to resort to oath-breaking or civil war, my avatar in that case being loyal to his "chain" nevertheless...

This is where the fun would go for me...

With the ranks requiring a type of vassal, this is possible. Which is why there might not be too many long chains. Instead, people would form pyramids so they can get stability. But that will require more people.

The alternative is to come up with a hybrid (like FH or Ramses did) or do away with vassal requirements completely. Personally, I rather see a hybrid if we are going to change it. I actually don't mind if the titles required vassals solely but many others are worried about stability. I guess I just wouldn't mind a slightly less stable game than some others. Which is cool. We'll just try to figure out what will work for us.

[Privateerkev]

I'm not so much worried about the whole chain shrinking by a link so much as it breaking entirely.

If players a, b, c, d and e are linked together in that order (e at the top) and c dies, do we get a pair of tiny chains consisting of two barons and viscounts (going by Tincow's new rank rules with the baronet cut out) or does the chain contract? I think a and b should remain part of the total chain through their prior oaths (which already tie the whole chain together in certain rank powers, like only the top noble being able to use prioritize building powers).

e
-d
--c
---b
----a

would become automatically:

b
-a

and

b
-a

They can then re-form if they choose:

d
-c
--b
---a

But the re-forming would be voluntary and the initial breaking would be automatic.

See, in the initial chain, one person only swore to one person. You cut the middle, and you just have those that have previously sworn to each other. You would then have to swear a new oath if you wanted to reform the new (smaller) chain.

[Zim]

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm expressing a preference for the chain automatically contracting rather than break apart.

e
-d
--c
---b
----a

would become automatically:

b
-a

and

b
-a

They can then re-form if they choose:

d
-c
--b
---a

But the re-forming would be voluntary and the initial breaking would be automatic.

See, in the initial chain, one person only swore to one person. You cut the middle, and you just have those that have previously sworn to each other. You would then have to swear a new oath if you wanted to reform the new (smaller) chain.

[Privateerkev]

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm expressing a preference that I would like the chain to automatically contract rather than break apart.

Your use of the question mark led me to believe you were asking a question.

Well, then oaths would have to be automatic at least under certain circumstances to pull that off.

I don't think I want automatic oaths. I want to choose who I swear to.

[Zim]

I wasn't entirely sure if Tincow had ever addressed that issue, but I understood the reasoning that would go behind the feudal chain breaking apart. The question part of the post really just needed an answer of "The former is correct" or "The latter is right" rather than a long explanation. The last sentence showing which way I preferred it to be was the one I was hoping would inspire debate.

Your use of the question mark led me to believe you were asking a question.

Well, then oaths would have to be automatic at least under certain circumstances to pull that off.

I don't think I want automatic oaths. I want to choose who I swear to.

[AussieGiant]

In a chain situation, then if someone leaves or dies, the one's under should have the opportunity to gain promotion by restating their oath.

Then of course the issue is finding someone at the bottom level to fill the new gap.

[Privateerkev]

I wasn't entirely sure if Tincow had ever addressed that issue, but I understood the reasoning that would go behind the feudal chain breaking apart. The question part of the post really just needed an answer of "The former is correct" or "The latter is right" rather than a long explanation. The last sentence showing which way I preferred it to be was the one I was hoping would inspire debate.

Well, my diagrams help me think stuff out so maybe it will help others.

As for the rules, they state currently that the moment you lose a requirement for a rank, you lose the rank. And that is what I have been going off of when I give my answers. That is why a chain breaks apart.

A contraction would force players into oaths they never agreed to. Same with forcing the heir to move to the top. Right now we have a very voluntary system. But what you and Ituralde have proposed has an element of involuntary oath swearing. At first glance, that is not a road I'd like to go down.

In a chain situation, then if someone leaves or dies, the one's under should have the opportunity to gain promotion by restating their oath.

Then of course the issue is finding someone at the bottom level to fill the new gap.

Yup, that is the current system. It is all IC.