Possible LotR Successor Game discussion thread

[TinCow]

Ranks and provinces never really meant much in LotR. We almost immediately had more land than active players. It'll mean more in the next version if a successful field general can hoard some of it and build himself into a threatening powerhouse. No matter how powerful someone gets in the end they can only control one stack of troops, can only attack in one direction at a time. If you want more than that you've got to trust someone, and if you don't want more than that then you will quickly find that younger players are just as happy to siege your cities with just their bodyguards as they are the AI's cities.

I agree that it would be good to find a way to give more significance to provinces. When writing the LotR rules, I tried to make it so that people would become invested in their provinces and work towards improving them. I very much wanted to encourage the type of thing that Cecil did during the KotR Cataclysm, but it simply didn't work out in LotR. For LotR, the problem is accurately identified as being way too many provinces. This wouldn't have been an issue if the player base was higher, but despite consistently having a much larger base than KotR, LotR still had too few players to make province ownership competitive.

Making provinces more valuable is definitely one area that should be explored. However, I also think there should also be some focus on slowing down expansion a bit. If provinces can be kept somewhat scarce, their value will naturally increase and people will be more concerned with keeping and improving what they have. I'm not sure how to slow down expansion without imposing rules that feel artificial, but if a method can be discovered for doing this it would be a good idea IMO.

[mini]

Like I said, if we play France for instance, we cannot lash out in all directions because of papal relations.
We can snatch a few rebel provinces, and then it's waiting until the AI triggers war with us so we can justify snatchign a few christian provinces.
Also France is big enough to give us atleast a few starting provinces, since we will have a serious starting player base.
I wouldn't be suprised if we are 10+ to start with, and if we play milan/denmark for instance, and we slow expansion, we might be too tight for such a player base.

[ULC]

Like I said, if we play France for instance, we cannot lash out in all directions because of papal relations.
We can snatch a few rebel provinces, and then it's waiting until the AI triggers war with us so we can justify snatchign a few christian provinces.
Also France is big enough to give us atleast a few starting provinces, since we will have a serious starting player base.
I wouldn't be suprised if we are 10+ to start with, and if we play milan/denmark for instance, and we slow expansion, we might be too tight for such a player base.

France was used for the test game I believe, and was voted fairly high - However, their unit roster is very similiar to the HRE's, where as the Danes and English unit rosters are much more unique.

I too like Ramses system, it's simple, and well thought out. However, can I suggest a vote cap? Thus, the guy with 5-6 provinces needs a few vassals to gain a little bit more power. Not sure how that would work out, but it at least begins to force the creation of Houses - you gain power from doing so, but your vassals also have a lot of indepedence as well.

As for slowing expansion, EDICTS! We could need an edict to capture a settlement, and another to commission the units to be trained. This should help I should think

[Ibn-Khaldun]

May I suggest something. It's not something new and was in LotR as well..
Well, I propose "Rules-Constitution-Edicts" system something like this:

• Rules - They will always be OOC and they are .. well.. Rules!
• Constitution - IC laws that are discussed and accepted before the game starts. These are laws that must be followed all times. Only high ranking player can propose Constitution Amendment. Here can be mentioned what settlements England(example) considers theirs and thus those settlements become fair game for players to take from AI or another player.
• Edicts - Laws that are in effect only between two Council Sessions. Penalties for braking them could be mentioned in the Constitution. Edicts can not contradict Constitution.

This way you can slow down expansion and make all those settlements be worthy and most of all.. there will be lot of fighting for taking/keeping those settlements.

Hope that what I just said makes sense!

[AussieGiant]

KotR was fairly effective at using edicts and CA's as a means to limit expansion.

It's down to resources and game balance.

If it costs too much to have more than one war going then the internal fighting over who could expand and who had to wait was a big part of KotR's balance mechanism. The problem is that some players can take on whole armies with little or no support except GB units. Likewise an ingenious piece of legislation was that all provinces taken had to be "ratified" and officially absorbed into the Empire. Because this was further legislation it became very political, which was very effective. If you set out expansion in the “constitution” of the game it can be role played as such and allows land to be the centre of political manoeuvring and voting.

I think it was fairly realistic that you had to decide as a group of Baron's and nobles in the Diet about who to attack and who not to.

-EDIT-

I honestly think CA and Edict that are "in-game" need to be policed and enforced in the game and not outside it. If you don't do this you will need a babysitter for all the toys that get thrown out of the pram. *grin*

[GeneralHankerchief]

Let's definitely add France to the "probable" list. I advocated that to be our faction for LotR, and I will continue to advocate it in this next game.

As far as the rules/CAs/Edicts go, I think TC's three-tiered system implemented midway through LotR was a very good solution to a somewhat flawed system and we should continue it.

[ULC]

Hmmm...if we combine 1 province = 1 vote with edicts and amendments being required for troops and land, we might run into one House gaining all the power.

We might also get some very heated Council sessions, since edicts and amendments literally mean power. Such a system makes the IC rp aspect seem more signifigant, and I'd vote for such a system, hands down.