Successor game rules, draft one.

[AussieGiant]

I think Cecil is onto something.

I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.

Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.

I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.

I think that would be an ideal situation.

[ULC]

I think Cecil is onto something.

I remember waiting and waiting and waiting. Once the game finally allowed me to join I was highly motivated in making sure the character was fleshed out and I certainly had a vested interest in his well being, career and advancement.

Play an "non character elector" was a good way to be part of the action and allowed you to get your feet wet and not sit on the side lines, but once you got yourself an avatar, then it was certainly an event in itself and created a large amount of "significance" in what you did.

I played the "Merchant of Venice elector" character until Arnold arrived...it was a very good experience.

I think that would be an ideal situation.

Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.

[Cecil XIX]

Hmmm...would it then be possible to actually designate a character for yourself who has not yet matured and roleplay him? Just thinking aloud.

Like this?

That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.

I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.

[ULC]

Like this?

That's the only time it ever happened as far as I know, but I think it would be a fine thing to do. There's hardly anything written about a character before they become active, despite the potential for unique stories.

I'm glad you chimed in AG, I think your experience was the best-case example of what happens when people have to wait, both with your 'Merchant of Venice' character Arnold himself.

Yes, that's what I mean - if I can do that, then I am absolutely positively for it. It will attach you to the character even more and create a grander background then even KOTR!

And I've gotten better at the whole PBM mindset, I believe - had LotR not ended so quickly, Helarionas would have developed into a fine character I believe.

[Zim]

You guys really want to do away with/limit rgbs? I can do it although it will likely mean about half the people that have expressed interest thus far would have to wait on an avatar.

I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game. I think we're about ready to get everything together to start.

[ULC]

You guys really want to do away with/limit rgbs? I can do it although it will likely mean about half the people that have expressed interest thus far would have to wait on an avatar.

I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game.

It's okay to limit them, but freely given you have less of a connection with them. Just a thought, we could "create" our own field promotions instead of relying on the randomness of the AI for them, and they could also be "sponsored" - not sure how that would work precisely, but it would get you in and rolling with a House and army fairly quickly, but with the obvious setback of being very limited in upwards mobility.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I'm going to try to get TinCow to weigh in on the annexation issue since there have been good arguments on both sides. I'll also see if a forum can be set up for the game. I think we're about ready to get everything together to start.

From what I know, in terms of this game's location on the .Org, I think it's likely that this LotR forum will just be renamed to the abbreviation of whatever we decide this game's name is.

I'll also take a closer look at the rules in the meantime, as I haven't really gone over them in-depth yet.

[TinCow]

From what I know, in terms of this game's location on the .Org, I think it's likely that this LotR forum will just be renamed to the abbreviation of whatever we decide this game's name is.

I'll also take a closer look at the rules in the meantime, as I haven't really gone over them in-depth yet.

I am back and will read through this thread and respond more fully later this evening. However, on the subforum question, GH is correct. This forum will be renamed. I had previously some other TR house-cleaning, including closing the TVS forum, but the forum implosion got in the way and Tosa has been busy since then. Once the name is decided upon, I'll put in another request to rename this forum and get the whole TR cleaned up properly.

[TinCow]

Note, I am reading the rules as they are posted at the moment, which I gather includes updates. However, I am responding to all comments I see which may include some what have since become irrelevant due to rule changes. Thus, disregard anything that is now moot.

Should Princes get 1 extra influence?

Princes already get a bonus to influence since their influence is on top of their normal rank influence. Remember that when determining balance.

I really like the idea of some kind of influence reward for successful pvp/civil wars. I would be at least partly concerned about an automatic +1 influence for winning a battle. If a Civil war went back and forth a fair deal that could be a lot of battles. Then again, that hasn't happened yet in two games (I guess the Swabian Civil War had the greatest number of battles, although the War of the Basileis had the potential for more). Do you think that would be an issue?

In hindsight, probably best to keep the rules simple and not put this in at the moment. If someone wins a civil war and something like this is felt to be warranted by the players at that time, it can always be added in with a rule change.

What do you think of the number of ranks? As it stands except for Duke the ranks listed are pretty easy to attain (A House that managed to get 5 people counting the Duke could have two counts), but I did want to make it fewer than LOTR. I've been thinking over whether one more might be appropriate. Definitely not any more than that.

I like the number of ranks the way they are. Simple and stable. It's also easy to add more in later if they are found to be needed. Focus on getting the basic solid, the frills can be added in once it is found to be working well.

Hmmm...you mentioned another rank as a possibility...maybe we should have a rank that a King can bestow, that adds power and prestige to a House, or some other function, that another House would want, creating friction through sucking up and power gain? I keep thinking Archduke or Master of Arms as possible titles.

I think this would be best added in with a Rule Change if/when it is found to be needed.

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.

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).

Also, if possible, try to make the number of unchangeable rules as small as possible. That way most ammendments can be dealt in an IC fashion, avoiding personal disputes and animosities.

The old WOTS/KOTR system of * marked rules that couldnt be changed was done away with halfway through LotR. Zim's current system allows any rule to be changed, which I agree is how it should be.

I'm not too keen on two ideas posted here :

1 - Edict for annexation : while I understand the concern for fast expansion, I don't like the idea of having to battle in the Senate (or Council or whatever it will be called) to keep a Province in the bosom of the Empire. It makes no sense historically. Powerful vassals (and sometimes even less powerful ones) ignored the will of their King and conquered/annexed provinces for their own gain, often requiring military pressure of their Lord to release them and not some court order...

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.

2 - Possibility for FM only to create new Houses. With the limits and caps set by Zim rules, I don't think we'll see new Houses appear overnight so restricting the possibility of creating them to FM might be just a touch too much and might deter people who have had access to a RGB only from grasping power into their own hands.

I'll discuss this below with comments on RBGs.

Oh no, it's his period if he conquers it - but until he gets approval for it in the Council, the Chancellor can freely ignore the entire province, including taxes, prioritization, building queues, etc, without penalty.

This makes it difficult to hold onto - it cannot be properly reinforced except from within the kingdom/empire, is subject to higher levels of revolt and generates less income.

Despite my statements above, this is an interesting idea. A hostile Chancellor could pump the taxes to Very High and make it hard to hold onto. A friendly Chancellor could make it easy to hold on to an 'illegal' province. I'm not sure whether this is the best way to go or not, but it's worth more discussion. I will think on it more before commenting further.

Two final issues which I will address in greater detail later (have to run at the moment and can't finish this post in detail):

1) RBGs - I am in favor of allowing RBGs. I generally feel the same way I did at the start of LotR. Refer to my comments on the subject in the next-gen rules thread for more insight before I can finish this train of thought.

2) Civil Wars - These need a functional overhaul. In LotR most Civil Wars lasted for years with no fighting. The system needs to be changed to that wars result in battles quickly and a resolved within a short period of time. This will make civil war far more serious of a threat than it was in LotR, where it was something of a joke for most of the game. Civil Wars needs to result in battles every single time, unless one side surrenders. My suggestion in brief is that both sides get 1 turn to assemble their allies and forces, then they are all tossed into a PvP battle (or battles) as the GM sees fit, regardless of where the avatars are on the in-game map.

[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.

[ULC]

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.

Simply giving it to the King makes it hard to defy him outright, and prevents essentially rebellious nobles - case in point, the Dukes of Aquitaine and Bavaria are very good examples.

[TheFlax]

Simply giving it to the King makes it hard to defy him outright, and prevents essentially rebellious nobles - case in point, the Dukes of Aquitaine and Bavaria are very good examples.

But Dukes can defy him pretty well, if they stir up support. Rebellious nobles usually are rebellious because they have power (I.E. Dukes). One lone knight with his small troupe taking a city for himself and keeping does not only break immersion (in my case) but also does not make much sense IMO.

[ULC]

But Dukes can defy him pretty well, if they stir up support. Rebellious nobles usually are rebellious because they have power (I.E. Dukes). One lone knight with his small troupe taking a city for himself and keeping does not only break immersion (in my case) but also does not make much sense IMO.

Yes, yet said Knight is basically helpless once he does so and is a nonfactor, and most likely will gain enemies instead of friends.

However, would you agree to the idea that the province comes before the Council, and that province allocation is either by the King, or the Council can give it to whom they please if they have 2/3rds majority?

[Cecil XIX]

TheFlax makes a good point about how players might still 'rush the map'. YLC response is sound as well, I think it all depends on how the players as a whole decide to act. With that in mind, I like Tincow's idea of having the Council block the King. I think it might be better if the Council could override the King's decision AND give it to someone else in particular, but I don't feel to strongly about it either way. I like the fact that Tincow's idea lets the King retain more power.

As to RGBs: I think they should just be limited, something of a middle ground between LOTR and the beginning/middle of KOTR. Here's a thought though, that may or may not be true: Is it possible that by forcing people to wait for avatars, the ones most likely to stick around were also most likely to be active and participate? The guys who played KOTR from beginning to end would know more about this, but to me it seems like the least active avatars appeared more around KOTR's end than it's beginning.

[ULC]

TheFlax makes a good point about how players might still 'rush the map'. YLC response is sound as well, I think it all depends on how the players as a whole decide to act. With that in mind, I like Tincow's idea of having the Council block the King. I think it might be better if the Council could override the King's decision AND give it to someone else in particular, but I don't feel to strongly about it either way. I like the fact that Tincow's idea lets the King retain more power.

Which is what my idea has basically come down to - seems fair, and realistic to me. You can still rush, but you will need the Council or Kings support. This increases dependency on established Houses, or the King himself to gain any power.

to RGBs: I think they should just be limited, something of a middle ground between LOTR and the beginning/middle of KOTR. Here's a thought though, that may or may not be true: Is it possible that by forcing people to wait for avatars, the ones most likely to stick around were also most likely to be active and participate? The guys who played KOTR from beginning to end would know more about this, but to me it seems like the least active avatars appeared more around KOTR's end than it's beginning.

My idea is that they are promoted or sponsored - possibly a House is allowed to sponsor a new general (RGB) once per term, with the condition that the new RGB is attached to the House.

[AussieGiant]

At the very least, I'd go with TC's version of land management.

Anything more is neutering the King too much. He is the King.

[ULC]

At the very least, I'd go with TC's version of land management.

Anything more is neutering the King too much. He is the King.

If 2/3rds of his own Nobles disagree with him, I think realistically, he wouldn't have much say anymore in how the affairs taken care of in his Kingdom, and France was a prime example of this.

[AussieGiant]

If 2/3rds of his own Nobles disagree with him, I think realistically, he wouldn't have much say anymore in how the affairs taken care of in his Kingdom, and France was a prime example of this.

The Council can veto it, but not force it to a certain House or noble. The King still decides. I think that is appropriate.

[ULC]

The Council can veto it, but not force it to a certain House or noble. The King still decides. I think that is appropriate.

Hmm...I still think we need people to pander to Houses more, and thus become dependent on them for power or any kind of gain. We also want to stir inter house rivalry. Being able to fight over who gets what could help, and it shouldn't always be the backers of the King that get everything.

My 2 cents.

Also, what do you think of my idea concerning RBG's?

[mini]

if we force rgb's to be sponserd (linked to a house) we will have more civil wars, as people might want to move up in the world. That may not always be possible if ur forced to part of a certain house ;p


I joined Lotr fairely late, but did manage to fight a battle (and lose :p) and got involved in the 4 basilei war.
I hope i can get my hands on one from the start this time ;p

[TinCow]

RBGs:

There are two main concerns that seem to be expressed regarding using RBGs. First, that players consider them disposable. There's no way to make someone keep an avatar alive when they don't want to, so it's pointless to try and do that. However, we can encourage someone to be more dedicated to their present avatar, regardless of the circumstances they're in. I see two ways of doing this:

1) Respawn timer. After a player dies, a new RBG cannot be spawned for them until X turns have passed. 5 seems reasonable to me. This would prevent avatar swapping unless you're moving from a RBG to a family member, which should probably not be blocked since those avatars stick around even if they're not being used. This also allows someone who won a battle in a civil war (and killed an enemy avatar) time to exploit their opponents temporary weakness before the player gets a chance to respawn and sign back up to fight for the same side.

2) No more multiple RBG spawns. Instead of spawning 3-6 RBGs and letting a player pick from them, a single RBG is spawned and that's what you have to take, regardless of traits, etc. This will make respawning risky because you might well get stuck with a crappy avatar or one you don't particularly like. It might also encourage more interesting roleplaying, forcing a player to take a character in a different direction than they had otherwise planned.

A combination of both 1 and 2 might be effective while still being simple to implement.

The second RBG concern that has been expressed is house instability, which I frankly think is an issue for family members as well. The best way to solve this is simply to make it hard to leave a House once you've joined one. In feudal societies, changing allegiances was a major thing and it would make sense to have major consequences. The most basic idea is simply to prevent any player from breaking an Oath except (1) if he has a dispensation from the King or (2) he declares war on his former Lord. While it makes sense to allow an Oath break if the Duke agrees to it, if the Duke and the vassal are in agreement, I suspect most Kings will give a dispensation. If the King won't allow it, it's just good IC politicking. This also gives the King a second way to manage Houses in addition to the land allocation power we are discussing.

Civil War Mechanics:

This seems to be a question of balancing strategic complexity with efficiency. I can think of many different ways of managing this. The more strategically complex it is, the slower and less likely to result in a battle it is. Here are the various systems I can think of off the top of my head, in decreasing order of complexity (and thus increasing likelihood of battles occurring).

1) Basic LotR system, as the rules are currently written. Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another. This allows total freedom of movement in the game and is thus the most strategic, but as we saw in LotR in-game movement speeds often result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. This system thus makes civil war almost completely harmless to an enemy whose lands are not near your own, which reduces their impact and makes them less serious. This system has the advantage of allowing gameplay to continue relatively normally while the maneuvering is in progress.

2) Phased Movement system, as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM or battle Umpire, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Only combatants submit orders, with all neutrals remaining frozen while the war takes place. This is faster than (1), more likely to result in battles due to the ability to allow increased movement ranges, and still allows moderate strategic movements, such as occupying bridges or defending certain settlements. However, players can still run away from one another or otherwise refrain from fighting if they want to. This also makes everyone else sit around and twiddle their fingers waiting for it all to be over, which can be a pain if it lasts a long time.

3) Phased Movement system, as was used in the KotR Cataclysm. Pretty much the same as (2), but everyone submits movement orders, even neutrals, and the game year keeps advancing. Has the advantages of (2) without making people twiddle their fingers. However, it's a lot more work for the GM/Umpire and it risks exploitation if the neutrals use this period of time to beat up the AI with their bonus movement.

4) MTW/Risk-style system. Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based on province proximity. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per phased turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage. This is even faster than (2) and (3) and very likely to result in a battle, since people don't need to move close to each other in a province, they just need to be in the same province. However, this doesn't allow for the same level of strategic detail as (1) through (3) and generally limits people to deciding whether to attack or defend. This also will make the neutrals sit around watching for a while, though for not as long as (2).

5) Instant battle system. As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over. This is the fastest method possible and will ALWAYS result in a battle, making civil wars very serious things. However, it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

Please feel free to discuss these options or otherwise propose your own systems.

[AussieGiant]

As a basic premise, KotR had more interaction and IC politicking than I could handle. Therefore to me the system supported this aspect extremely well. I know it's just my experience but I did play both extremes of the spectrum, unnamed elector, then a family member.

A bit of light reading of the Diet sessions can confirm this.

RBG's are nice, but not a "must have" in my view. At the very least it's a one shot spawn in order to ensure the disposability of the RBG is not exploited.

Civil Wars...again I thought the KotR system was a nice blend of characteristics.

[TinCow]

Civil Wars...again I thought the KotR system was a nice blend of characteristics.

The only KotR civil war system was the Cataclysm, and that took so much time to implement that I had to promise my wife I would never do it again. Just a warning to anyone considering running that kind of thing.