Successor game rules, draft one.

[TinCow]

On the RBG issue, here are my old comments on the issue after KOTR was over:

First, while it was nice to have a ‘family tree’ of avatars with each group descended from one of Heinrich’s four children, it turned out to be far more of a pain than it was worth IMO. Some people had to wait several months just get their first avatar and we suffered serious problems with supplying people with avatars in their desired Houses for most of the game. There were also some major problems with unbalanced Houses, since the game did not spawn avatars equally amongst our four custom-made divisions. The only positive side of maintaining the family tree was having it look nice in the Library. That seems like a small benefit to me, considering the major inconveniences.

We have already concluded long ago that allowing recruitable generals is a good thing. By scrapping any formal House system, we also eliminate the risk that the adoption of a recruitable general will screw up the family tree. If the position on the family tree has no real purpose other than for role-playing, it won’t create any major problems if the general is added on in the wrong spot.

IMO, all of the above remains true. I do not doubt that AG valued Arnold a lot more once he got his hands on him because of the wait required for the avatar. However my recollection of KOTR is that there weren't many people who reacted in the same way. As far as I remember, most people simply found it annoying to have to wait and did not like being unable to pick which House they could join. If you need any more proof about how unpopular it was, keep in mind that in KotR we actually enabled RBGs about 2/3 of the way through the game. This was not a LotR-only thing.

I think the current trend towards reminiscing about the old system is more due to the inability of many people to get into their LotR characters. I think the RBGs are getting slandered by these legitimate complaints when I think LotR's failures were in other areas. I strongly urge that RBGs be kept, though I do support the idea of making it more difficult to leave a House once you join one. Not using RBGs would be particularly bad if we also use a system that restricts expansion. The game spawns avatars based on the number of provinces controlled by the faction. If we achieve our goal of limiting expansion, there will be almost no new faction member spawns which will essentially wreck the game by leaving it depopulated.

[AussieGiant]

Well I'm in total legal negotiation mode right now.

If we go with RGB's then I would reiterate the massive significance of how the KotR system handled land, its acquisition and its distribution.

To quote TC:

*** I agree completely. Internal interaction and competition is where the fun comes from, competition against the AI is always secondary to this. Gaining power should thus be focused mainly on internal politicking, with the wars with the AI being only an after-thought (since we're bound to win them).

*** I see this is a balance between realism and gameplay. The simple fact is it is easy to conquer province, and easy expansion makes the game less enjoyable IMO. Thus, it would be best to require the conquest of provinces to not only necessitate military prowess, but also a run through the internal political system as well. If the players constantly stop a certain House or Houses from expanding, that makes for good RP conflicts.

The way it functioned in KotR was very impressive in my view.

And finally, the rule set should be kept as basic as possible and be structured that we find in the first instance an IC solution and in the second instance, another IC solution and then perhaps finally an OOC rule change. Make the formulation and rule set part of the legislation process, which is essentially what we are all doing as nobles of a Empire.

in this vein, ranks should be short, simple and few. If we need more then lets IC the thing. That in itself creates interest and action.

[TinCow]

The KotR system was simple: the Emperor gets the provinces and hands them out as he pleases, though once given to a House they cannot be taken back without war. This worked fine in the game, though I do recall the people playing the Kaiser handing them out rather evenly instead of exploiting the system for partisan benefits. Since paritsan play by the King may be more likely in the new game (it was specifically stated in the KotR rules that it should not occur there), it makes sense to allow for an alternate route around the King. This fits historically as well, since the French Kings were pretty weak in 1080 AD and took a long time to consolidate their power. The simplest solution is to allow a 'Council of Nobles' vote to override the King. If the King allocates a province and a Duke protests this allocation, a Council of Nobles vote is called and can veto the allocation by a 2/3 vote. The Nobles can't pick WHO gets the provinces, but they can block it until the King gives it to someone they approve of.

[ULC]

The KotR system was simple: the Emperor gets the provinces and hands them out as he pleases, though once given to a House they cannot be taken back without war. This worked fine in the game, though I do recall the people playing the Kaiser handing them out rather evenly instead of exploiting the system for partisan benefits. Since paritsan play by the King may be more likely in the new game (it was specifically stated in the KotR rules that it should not occur there), it makes sense to allow for an alternate route around the King. This fits historically as well, since the French Kings were pretty weak in 1080 AD and took a long time to consolidate their power. The simplest solution is to allow a 'Council of Nobles' vote to override the King. If the King allocates a province and a Duke protests this allocation, a Council of Nobles vote is called and can veto the allocation by a 2/3 vote. The Nobles can't pick WHO gets the provinces, but they can block it until the King gives it to someone they approve of.

Which is essentially my suggestion, although the province immediately goes to the conquer instead of the King in my suggestion, and mine increases the Chancellors power - however, this may make for a more heated debate as to whom gets elected, and if at any point the King is the Chancellor, then the situation becomes pretty hopeless.

[TheFlax]

About that has been said recently, in a nutshell:

RGBs: I completely agree with TC, I'd rather not make players wait for the game to spawn avatars. Interacting purely in the senate for a few terms takes a great deal of dedication. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on people ditching their avatar (through carelessness or because they simply want to change) getting another one immediately after. Just a thought.

As far as new players going inactive, I think that stems mostly from feeling out of the loop. In my opinion it is up to the players in positions of power and importance to involve these new players.

Edicts for annexations: I'm partial to TC's proposition, mostly because even though I liked YLC's idea, I don't think the chancellor needs more power. I also feel its more simple to implement. YLC's idea would mean tracking which provinces are legit, which are not.

Civil Wars: I agree we need to avoid another War of Words. I liked the civil war event which ended LotR, a sort of special campaign mode for Civil War. Would this be too complicated to be used in every civil wars? If so, than the next best thing IMO is what TC proposed. How would the terrain of battle be picked? The side who has the avatar with most command stars could possibly chose the terrain of battle, representing a better strategist?

[Zim]

I'll likely go with the simpler annexation rules for now...

RE:Civil Wars, I kind of like being able to hold ground (like a bridge) or settlements but hated the War or Words. While I don't think things would be quite as bad here (the Basileus in Const versus and Egyptian House with neutral houses in between did not make for an easy war) I can still see why people have concerns.

Something like the system for the war in the last game could work, or just a "gather armies for one big battle". Alternatively, we could just punish people who stall. X turns with no hostile moves means an instant white peace with all captured settlements going to whoever is currently holding them.

[ULC]

About that has been said recently, in a nutshell:

RGBs: I completely agree with TC, I'd rather not make players wait for the game to spawn avatars. Interacting purely in the senate for a few terms takes a great deal of dedication. I do think there should be some sort of restriction on people ditching their avatar (through carelessness or because they simply want to change) getting another one immediately after. Just a thought.

As far as new players going inactive, I think that stems mostly from feeling out of the loop. In my opinion it is up to the players in positions of power and importance to involve these new players.

Edicts for annexations: I'm partial to TC's proposition, mostly because even though I liked YLC's idea, I don't think the chancellor needs more power. I also feel its more simple to implement. YLC's idea would mean tracking which provinces are legit, which are not.

Civil Wars: I agree we need to avoid another War of Words. I liked the civil war event which ended LotR, a sort of special campaign mode for Civil War. Would this be too complicated to be used in every civil wars? If so, than the next best thing IMO is what TC proposed. How would the terrain of battle be picked? The side who has the avatar with most command stars could possibly chose the terrain of battle, representing a better strategist?

I agree with most points, except -

It would be rare to have an illegitimate province, and it could be kept track of easily on a list of conquered provinces among the KotF Library. Second, we can take away a chancellors ability to decide whether or not to fund it, simply by stating he can't until it is legitimate, hence my refinement of the rule - a friendly chancellor is still important, but not overpowering. Again, not very hard, since legitimizing a province is usually a once off thing - essentially like keeping track of Chancellors.

I dislike the idea of simply making a single battle of it, simply because it removes any strategy on the map. I wouldn't mind it if it became localized however - a fight in one area or over one settlement, while skipping movement to and from. I would never, if war was declared upon me, ever summon up all my forces and bet it on one battle in the middle of nowhere - it's war, I'm not going to be a gentleman about it! I'm going to try and use tactics to bleed my opponent dry first, force small battles, or costly ones. What TC is proposing is basically the opposite and limits tactical choice - again, the basis is solid, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose my fights instead of rumbling it out in the ring with what will almost always be a 600 pound gorilla.

[TheFlax]

Why would it be rare to have illegitimate provinces? Unless I understood something incorrectly, people could just rush castles, which are pretty easy to keep in good order since we couldn't raise the taxes. I'd much rather give some more power to the king, which can be contested by the more powerful nobles, makes for good politicking.

As for the Civil War rules, I think I won't get into that right now, too tired.