Successor game rules, draft one.

**Zim** · 06-18-2009, 23:28

Would you say that the rules are properly balanced right now then? With no rank needed between Duke and Count?

As it is I'd be perfectly happy just making a few minor adjustment before finishing up everything we need to start the game. The main last few changes I'm considering are:

1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King, something I just forgot writing up that rank.
3. "Possibly" scrapping the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence.

**ULC** · 06-18-2009, 23:31

Originally Posted by Zim

Would you say that the rules are properly balanced right now then? With no rank needed between Duke and Count?

As it is I'd be perfectly happy just making a few minor adjustment before finishing up everything we need to start the game. The main last few changes I'm considering are:

1. Allow Dukes to lose their title through Civil War
2. Prioritized units for the King, something I just forgot writing up that rank.
3. "Possibly" scrapping the somewhat confusing stat influence system for something simpler, one vote per person plus a few titles (Duke, having been Chancellor, King, marrying the Princess) adding a bit of influence.

Sounds fine to me - a Master of Arms title should be something we should fight over ingame, not pregame I suppose.

and AG, does this mean your in?

**GeneralHankerchief** · 06-19-2009, 00:04

Upon a quick read, I like what I see, and I'm in favor of there being fewer ranks as opposed to more. Even the highest-attaining players in LotR couldn't sniff Exarch.

**flyd** · 06-19-2009, 00:08

Did you not like the idea to limit expansion and strengthen the legislative body by requring "annexation" votes, which is that each conquered province has to be annexed by an Edict or given back?

**ULC** · 06-19-2009, 00:12

Originally Posted by flyd

Did you not like the idea to limit expansion and strengthen the legislative body by requring "annexation" votes, which is that each conquered province has to be annexed by an Edict or given back?

Could you elaborate on the overall amount of steps for this? To me it sounds as if your saying that each province captured is only captured until the next Chancellor phase unless it is ratified in - considering the King himself gets the provinces this game and then doles them out how he sees fit, that might curb expansion by Houses that do not share good feelings with the King, while allowing another House to literally explode overnight.

**Zim** · 06-19-2009, 00:17

That's what happened in KOTR, isn't it? How did it work out?

I joined during the Cataclysm, and then in the period after there was an edict for me and OK to take back Outremer so I never really had to chance to run up on limits on taking territory...

**Ignoramus** · 06-19-2009, 03:22

I think limiting expansion is vital. If we get too big too quickly, then we end up with what happened to LotR - there was simply too much wealth and land to go around. Hence no one really bothered to pick a fight, because there was more to lose than to gain from doing so.

Also, I say we try and get some newer players to the series to be the King and Prince. It helps get them into the game more. And we should advertise around for players soon, if we want a good number.

**TheFlax** · 06-19-2009, 03:30

Thing is, we don't want someone who will just disappear from the game after a few turns.

**Zim** · 06-19-2009, 04:49

If everyone's ok with it I could add that requirement for an edict for annexation.

As far a who gets the beginning fms, I was thinking of giving some of them to players who made it to/near the end of LOTR but hadn't gotten to play the Basileus, Caesar, or a House leader, if nobody objects.