Successor game rules, draft one.

**ULC** · 06-20-2009, 10:35

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

The main issues I see with your suggestion YLC is that it is not an absolutely certain situation for the King and in fact the Chancellor can get involved without his consent. In effect the Chancellor has even more power.

I also think this rule was put into the game IC...can someone confirm?

I'd prefer to wait and see what NN, TC or GH have to say before commenting anything further.

That was one of my main issues with my idea - the Chancellor seems to be able to just simply ignore the rule, so why not change it to the Chancellor can't do ANYTHING with the province besides send troops/agents into it under his control? And the province has taxes set to high, or very high?

**Zim** · 06-22-2009, 07:26

*bump*

**TinCow** · 06-22-2009, 21:19

I've seen several requests for my input in this thread. Apologies, but I'm out of town on business this entire week. I have internet access, but don't really have time to do much more than skim the forums. I will be happy to respond, but you'll have to wait until next weekend or early next week.

**Zim** · 06-22-2009, 23:16

Any more opinions on the issue at hand? I admit at the moment I am still leaning towards the system currently in place in the rules over YLC's somewhat more complicated system.

Does anyone else prefer the latter, or just generally dislike the idea of either type of limit on annexation?

**mini** · 06-23-2009, 07:07

maybe the conquered province shouldnt be given to the king obligatory...

More a kind of unwritten tradition. Another tradition is the handing back of the province by the king.

So, a duke may not give the city to the king. The king may now force the surrounding dukes upon this renegade and put pressure.

or a duke hands over the city, but the king just gives it to another house. The conquering house is pissed, and will not hand over the next conquered city, and will plot some kind of revenge against both king and the other house who got th city by buttkissing with the king.

Could lead to various interesting plots, intrigues and civil wars :p

**Ignoramus** · 06-23-2009, 12:05

I say that in civil wars the duke gets to keep the province, otherwise the king gets to dictate who owns it. If you don't like it, say so with your sword.

**ULC** · 06-23-2009, 12:19

To refine my rule further, when a noble conquers a province -

He can keep it, but cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, until:
A) He hands the province over to the King, who then does with it as he sees fit.
B) He gains 2/3rds support from the Council to ratify his sovereignty over the province.

**Ignoramus** · 06-23-2009, 12:28

I think it's actually a good idea to have a very basic set of rules for things like this, and then develop it in-game.

Maybe it's good to say that a noble can conquer a province, but like YLC said he cannot adjust tax rate, produce agents & troops, or construct buildings, unless he hands it over to the king or rebels.

That way, he is actually creating a burden for himself. It also doesn't invalidate the worth of the king, as getting his approval will be vital to legitimately utilising that province. If you don't, you may have to throw off the king's authority and try and force an agreement.

I think that the game is served best by short sharp civil wars which result in a decisive battle, and then an agreement is made between winner and loser. This set-up should encourage that.