ETW PBM Think Tank

[GeneralHankerchief]

I admit that, while majorly anticipating ETW's release, I really haven't followed its mechanics. Thus, I can't contribute to this brainstorming session as much as I'd like.

However, I do see a workaround to the splitoff issue: Perhaps a two-tiered system, with FMs on top and generals/admirals on the bottom. Each family member could sponsor a few generals, depending on the ratio. These generals would work to increase their FM's influence, thus in return getting them more rewards. The system could work a lot like LotR, in that a general needs to find a sponsor if they really want a say. In addition, that general could work to influence their sponsor's views about subjects and thus play an indirect role in the debating process. Each FM would also get one general/admiral under his direct control (i.e. they're played by the same player) in order to provide enforcement and such, in addition to getting that player some field action.

Basically, this system would offer something for everybody. The players that mostly want to fight battles and work the game could take generals, and the players that want to interact with others could take FMs.

This makes sense in my head but may not translate well to the forum, so I'd appreciate some feedback/clarification requests.

[Ramses II CP]

Why not let the family members vie politically for control of the generals to lead their armies, while the generals scheme from below. I can see Senate sessions where successful generals are assigned every ten turns by vote to 'houses' or 'families' or whatever. Force the family members to issue their orders 'in character' so that the general has flexibility on how he implements them, etc.

An added layer like that just makes things more interesting in my book.

[GeneralHankerchief]

That could work.

Maybe have a system similar to the current LotR rankings one in which the number of generals an FM can have is directly tied to the amount of land he owns. Generals have control, to a degree, of their army but are still somewhat bound by their FM's orders.

I still believe that whoever plays an FM should also directly control a general (RP it as that FM helping out with funds or something) just to enforce things and prevent rampant generals going rogue.

If we could mod the game to make generals become FMs under certain conditions that would be perfect.

-edit- Again, I'm just pretty much spilling out whatever comes out of my head with no thought to organization or anything.

[TinCow]

Hmmm... those are interesting ideas. The two-tiered system worked will in WotS and provided a way for people who didn't have the game (or have the time to play it) to join in. If ETW really does split the roles in this manner, the two-tiered system might work well. Perhaps we could even split apart the duties. Maybe only family members get to be 'Chancellor' or something, but only Generals get to fight battles, though that would void the idea of family members not needing the game (or, at least, some of them would need the game).

The idea of one FM and one General each is interesting too, but it might be limited if the game doesn't supply us with many family members. We'll have to wait and see when the game comes out, but I have a feeling that the size of the family tree will be a lot smaller if they don't act as generals as well.

[Skullheadhq]

Perhaps we could mod the 1v1 campaign to be like...erm....1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

[ULC]

Well, one of the more important issues with this idea of a two-tiered system is that fact family members are essentially exclusive to the "Monarchy" type government - Constitutional Monarchies and Republics will likely have elected or appointed officials that may exist solely on the whims of the Upper and Lower Classes. They will most likely fill a function as ever present governor of a Province, or as a Minister handling specific affairs such as the Navy/Military and Technology, providing continuous bonuses and penalties based upon traits.

Thus, it's quite possible that the only continuous roleplayable characters will be Admirals and Generals.

[TinCow]

Yes, that's very true. One possible way around this would be to divorce players and in-game avatars. Instead of RPing a specific in-game persona, people could simply be a random nobleman or other prominent figure of some kind, perhaps a successful merchant, retired general, senior civil servant, etc. People simply make up the person they want to RP, without any pre-set determinations of any kind. Though these people wouldn't exist in the game, this only really impacts them living and dying. We could still let them own provinces and 'employ' generals and admirals, who would be theirs to control. We then allow acquisition and loss of provinces and ranks in a similar style to the curent system (though the feudal system will have to be completely overhauled to reflect the different political arrangements of the timeperiod). Influence already seems to rely more on the actions of the player rather than the stats of his avatar. It would be relatively simply to continue this evolution and remove stat influence from the game altogether.

Thus, separating the players from a specific in-game avatar will only really remove the life and death bit. This also has the added convenience of allowing players to be anywhere they want at any time. This could open up more options for easier PvP. Perhaps people with bordering provinces can attack each other even if a general isn't present. The two garrisons simply fight it out, and the winner takes the other's province, without any in-game movement necessary. We may even be able to add some kind of basic PvP system into the game that can be done in peacetime as well. Maybe surround another player's lands with your own provinces on multiple sides and 'absorb' his province? Perhaps put in some kind of monetary system that allows a player to actually purchase another's land, either willingly or as a 'hostile takeover.'

[ULC]

Actually, let me take a bit back about not being able to Roleplay administrators. It's highly possible that even in a Republic/Constitutional Monarchy, there would be a pool of Administrators to choose from or put up for election. If that is how it works, then it would be easier to Roleplay an Administrator, since the game mechanic for election and advancement would already be contained within the game, requiring less rules made by the players to govern it.

So then the basic idea already put forward of the people playing as Administrators as direct governors and those playing as Admiral's and General's as commander could work. The basic game structure could work like this -

First level - King/President/Chancellor/Prime Minister: Owns all Provinces at a start of game and hands them out to Administrators to govern. All Administrators owe some form of allegiance to the First Level, possibly in the form of payment or the First Level having the sole power of Impeachment of lesser officials without need of consent.

Second Level - Administrator/Official/Secretary: Own a Province given to them by the First Level. Based on income determined by whichever mechanic (possibly a Treasurer, since it would be even more realistic to have one at this point) to train officers and levy troops. Second Level would sponsor Generals and Admirals, and sponsorship can extend beyond their province, enabling them to offer better sponsorship to another Officials Generals and Admirals - however, there would need to be a mechanic to limit it's use.

Third Level - Generals/Admirals: Control armies, and are responsible for all defenses of the Province of their Sponsor. Can conduct offense actions with official sanction based upon degree of action. Able to levy basic non-state troops, but requires Sponsorship for state troops. This allows some degree of Freedom, enabling a Third Level player to go off on their own, but it is risky to do so.

Thoughts?