That's kinda exactly what I didn't want the faction leader to be. Why should the chiefs of seperate tribes answer to this one guy? It ruins the point, surely. The leaders of events should always be choson on the spot considering strength and importance rather than them being the in-game faction leader.IMO the "faction leader" should represent someone chosen during these meetings to hold the meetings and perhaps also as the chosen commander if we need to band up against a common threat. I don't think it should represent any actual lordship over other tribes (or even necessarily his own).
IMO Council sessions should not be held on any specific regularity so long as we're not united, but can be called by the "faction leader" (and the chiefs of each tribe can request one to him). It should be about things that concern all tribes, like banding together against a common foe, unification attempts or perhaps an attempt to get to some general agreements like "don't exterminate the populations" or whatever.
I agree council sessions shouldn't be regular, but it does give a place where players can always talk to each other, and gives a regular time when all players should be active. So maybe introduce some regularity just to oil the machine, if you see what I mean. But once again you say all the chiefs need t request the 'faction leader' to hold a meeting. The point was each chief is their own faction leader. I don't think we should use the ingame faction leader at all. If that character also happens to be the best candidate for a chief, then good. But he shouldn't automatically be in a position of power.
And we can always gain a decent player base by recruiting in the EB forums just before we're about to start. IF we can sort out the way the game is going to work, then I think it should supply some new interest, as it should run differently from other PBMs, thus being more interesting. I envisage this game as being kinda like a PBM/hotseat combined, so it should gain interest from both forms of players.
Bookmarks