Successor game rules, draft one.

[econ21]

There is also the issue of counts swearing to eachother, likely to happen with larger Houses (at least if their dukes try to keep them very hierarchical, you could also just have multiple branches down from the Duke).

So oaths of fealty can be between players of the same rank? I thought the whole point about different feudal ranks was to identify where you stood on the vassalage chain. It might be better to restrict oaths of fealty to be to players of higher rank on the KISS principle. New ranks can always be introduced by rules changes, but what we have seems ample to me.

With prioritized units the Chancellor loses some of his power. I'm not sure we should take away his power to control what exact units are recruited. If the position gets too weak people might be less inclined to run for it. It's a lot of work as is...

From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.

[Zim]

In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...

If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.

Re: Prioritization I'm reluctant to change something that worked fine in LOTR and received no complaints. It gives the Chancellor a way to passive aggressively retaliate against a House he dislikes, without going to outright war (and with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war). It was never a heavily used power, not even that strong of one, and using it likely makes you a permanant enemy.

Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGB Dukes anyway...

[ULC]

I think it would be a good idea to allow a Duke to name anyone as his successor - nothing like a Mini-Siegfried event to stir things up

[econ21]

In medieval France feudal chains could be quite confusing, with two equals holding land as "vassals" of eachother...

I can imagine. It's common in developing countries for people to loan each other money (simultaneously), essentially to establish a relationship of mutual support. But please, Zim, trying to simulate something that was "quite confusing" at the time is not always a virtue. I guess it's because I missed LotR, but I am struggling to understand our House/Rank rules and I doubt I am the only one. We surely don't want to allow two Barons to promote themselves both to Counts just by swearing allegiance to each other? It's starting to do my head in.

If I change it we still won't have a neat hierarchy, and Houses over 3 or so people will likely end up with the Duke and several different branches (in fact, they would have to). Not neccessarily a bad thing, but for something like the Order from LOTR, which was a House set up as a military order, it might make sense to keep the chain as a neat line rather than a little tree like the family one.

I think a military order could work out their own seniority rule informally, we don't need to have it in the game rules. In every military, there is a tree like structure of ranks (multiple sergeants, captains etc) but then additional rules to establish chain of command. At least, that's what I remember from innumberable viewings of the film Zulu, when the two British lieutenants at the start establish who's in charge by date of commission.

Do we want to change the FM requirement for heirs of Dukes? I didn't anticipate so many people. Not sure how long it will take to get adoptions, and we're going to have starting permanant RGBs anyway...

I'm tempted to go for KISS again and drop all distinctions between FM and RGBs except those created by the game engine. I like the idea of Dukes being FMs, as then the game engine will allow them to start dynasties. But I think you are right and the number of players could put a strain on such a requirement.

with the way our pvp rules are shaping up, he has almost no role during a civil war.

To be honest, we have not got very far with the PvP rules yet. But if prioritisation is left as it is, then the case for introducing some mechanic for non-Chancellor recruitment in a civil war seems overwhelming.

[Zim]

Two barons can't swear fealty to eachother...

I don't like the idea of forcing a certain type of feudal chain structure. If changed, imagine a four person House, with a Duke, Count, Baron, and Knight, all sworn in that order. The Knight literally cannot gain land by the rules before breaking his oath, because that would result in two Counts, one sworn to the other...

I just fear turning the Chancellor position more and more into busy work. It was hard to get them late in LOTR and the more powers we take, the weaker he becomes.

I"m a little tired and I just found out I was hired for a new job. I'm going to celebrate with my wife and come back to this tonight or tomorrow. I'll just go with whatever everyone wants...

[TinCow]

Another option for the prioritization issue: Keep the rules as is, but allow a person to spend two prioritizations to get a specific unit instead of leaving it up to the Chancellor's whims. Also, specifically exclude Peasants from being recruited as infantry units for prioritization purposes. A minimum level of Town Militia, Peasant Archers, and Mounted Sergeants for the three respective categories isn't really that bad. We regularly beat up the AI with stuff like that.

[Cecil XIX]

I suppose that would be better, but I still prefer my proposal. And I've thought of another reason: A sense of ownership.

Prioritized units, under my system, would be choosen entirely by the avatar at rare intervals. This would give those units a sentimental value to players that we have not seen. I think that would be good for immersion, by providing a connection with regular soldiers.

[Zim]

Banning peasant recruitment would definately be needed.

If we did allow them to recruit any unit from a settlement they owned does everyone think the nmber of prioritized units is small enough that wouldn't cause problems if, say, every picked high end, expensive units?

And would Dukes be able to recruit from anywhere in their House? If so should they be able to get around the fact that units belong to the owner of their settlement upon spawning?

[Cecil XIX]

From a rules design point of view, priorisation just seems meaningless if you ask for infantry and are given peasants. And from a historical plausibility point of view, it does not seem to fit the decentralised feudal vibe we are going for. With about 25 players signed up, at the moment, I would not worry too much about a lack of candidates for Chancellor yet.

I don't know if I argued this very strongly back when we were deciding it (or at all, man that seems like a long time ago), or even at all, but I agree completely. Since no player can prioritize a large number of units quickly, you're still pretty vulnerable if the Chancellor isn't spending any money on your armies and provinces. Even a King only gets 5 units per term, which averages to 1 regiment every two turns. And most avatars will probably be Barons, who only get 2 units per Chancellor's Term. That works out to getting one unit every 5 turns! That may be all right for FH with his lancers, or Ramses with his HA, but for the most of us that's not enough to get by on even if we could choose what we got!

Currently, you can specify whether you're prioritizing infantry, cavalry, or archers right? That means at most the chancellor just has to give you is units of peasants, peasant archers or mounted sergeants. I'm guessing mounted sergeants are the most useful, but still. You can hardly call that insurance against a hostile chancellor, especially if he's pumping money in to the armies and provinces of your enemies while your getting nothing. (Sound familar, Zim? )

I would propose that we alter the rule to allow players to prioritze units, but give them the option to choose what units they want, providing that those units can be recruited from settlements they control. If you have a good castle or the like, it should help your ability to prioritize.

No matter who strong you are, you're at a big disadvantage if you're not getting any money. That's still true under this proposed change, with the bonus that players and houses that have a Chancellor who's their determined enemy can still maintain a reduced, but not impotent power base. In my opinion, this is the change that is most essential to KotF.

And as econ said, this is more in line with the fuedal feel we're going for.