Successor game rules, draft one.

[Vladimir]

I suspect we will handle this IC, but I would put the case again to Zim for buffing up the AI forces on our borders, as it is hard to make a convincing IC argument for letting your enemy develop.



I assume this will just be by avatar starting location. King gets Paris, Dauphin gets Toulouse as capital of his Duchy; 3 starter generals get their starter settlements by virtue of being its Duke.

The rules do need a little rewording to allow for the French specific information and colour.

As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?

Also: Are there some settlements which start out without a general? I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France.

Rewording of the rules is necessary before we agree on them.

[econ21]

Are there some settlements which start out without a general?

It's 5 provinces and 5 generals (inc King and Dauphin) at the start, so it's nice and balanced.

I suppose settlements should go to the more experienced players, however, I've always wanted to go to southern France.

Yes, Dukes are very important for driving IC politics, so giving them to players with a track record makes sense. What we've tried to do in the past is favour the long stayers who did not make it to positions of influence in the predecessor game. For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.

[TinCow]

For the rest of us, I think Zim will create some RBGs and then when we have picked, use the teleport to place them in the provinces that people want to be placed in. I guess we need to allow some real time interval for Houses to try to recruit RBGs before location is finalised.

Yep, I think that's the best method. In LotR, I allowed all players to pick any settlement owned by the faction as the starting point for a new avatar and simply teleported them to whatever place they chose. Beyond the obvious benefits to roleplaying of being able to start in a particular spot instead of having to cross half the empire to get there, this also allows the RBG recruitment to be done in any sleepy, backwater settlement so that it doesn't risk interfering with normal recruitment that might otherwise be going on at the chosen destination.

[AussieGiant]

In addition it might be worth waiting until the suggested tournment is over.

Everyone can congregate IC at the tournament and feel each other out and then declare allegiances.

Then mass teleportation can begin.

[TinCow]

That's a very good point, the tournament might be an excellent opportunity for Houses to recruit. So...

1) RBG spawning/selection
2) Tournament
3) Teleportation of avatars to chosen starting spot
4) First Council session

That's easily the most interesting method of starting one of these games that I've ever seen.

[AussieGiant]

That's a very good point, the tournament might be an excellent opportunity for Houses to recruit. So...

1) RBG spawning/selection
2) Tournament
3) Teleportation of avatars to chosen starting spot
4) First Council session

That's easily the most interesting method of starting one of these games that I've ever seen.

Yeah Baby...that's going to be just very very entertaining.

[deguerra]

i hope you realize how difficult you are making it for me not to join up right this second. if i wait until the game progresses, i miss out on tournament mayehm and fun...what good is that...conundrums...gah...

[_Tristan_]

Thank the French for their sense of fun ... FTW

[Zim]

As much as I like to have every advantage possible, I agree that buffing AI (i.e. English) settlements would add a challenge. What do you think Zim?

I think it was suggested some time ago an addition be made to the rules allowing me to create armies for AI factions if need be. Not sure which post number, though.

At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.

[Ignoramus]

Don't worry Zim, you're doing a great job. We're nearly at the end of the rules phase, and then the fun will begin!

I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.

On reading the rules, it doesn't look too worrying, as long as it's not abused.

[econ21]

I am a bit worried about the possibility of Nobles being able to switch houses. One of the great things about KOTR was the factional squabbling between the houses. It was great! In LOTR, however, houses were too fluid, and it killed any real friction, because as soon as someone got sick of the house leader, they just formed their own house.

That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.

If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.

Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?

[Ignoramus]

That's an important issue to consider - especially if the noble leaving, leaves with their lands, as presumably they will. I did not play LotR so I am not sure how this will all play out. Under the current rules, as I understand them, the person leaving the House will take their land? The Duke will have the right to declare war on the departing noble on the grounds that he is oath-breaker and if so all the Dukes other vassals will also be at war (at least in name, I cant see we can force them to fight or switch sides). The Duke will presumably have a military edge, so any conflict would presumably depend on the attitude of the other Houses. If they support the breakaway noble, then I imagine he could get away with it.

If all of the above is true, it sounds reasonably ok to me - the penalties are very politically dependent, with some weight in favour of the Duke but not insurmountable. If a Duke alienates all his vassals, he could be deposed - which again seems ok. We could hardwire more support for the Duke into the rules, but I think governing (by Dukes etc) does require some consent.

Is the above how other people see things? How does it relate to what happened in LotR? Were the same rules in play there, but there was too much fluidity between houses?

In LotR, I think it was the same, but it was really hard for house leaders to stomp on rebellious vassals. The large distances involved really added to this problem. When I was Emperor, trying to attack rebellious players was impossible, due to the large distances. In KotF, we shouldn't have as big a problem.

My main concern is that without players being really committed to a particular house, things can sometimes get disorganised and it's hard to find something to fight for.

[econ21]

At the least I could add some troops to Normandy to make it tougher to take, and maybe eventually some to England as well if it's invaded, although I'll be adjusting the King's Purse of AI factions as well, so hopefully they'll be building enough already.

My recommendation would be to at least give every faction some starting troops equivalent to the RBGs we spawn for ourselves - remembering they have 2hps. Afterall that is what each of us would insist on, if we were each asked to play one non-French faction competitively. I guess it would equate to about a couple of balanced, good quality stacks per faction. I would be happy to spawn the stacks myself if it was approved - putting them next to capitals or some such - as I worked out the composition of those stacks for most factions while running KotR. I suspect players might prefer the stacks be there at the beginning, so they can make strategic choices, rather than spawned at the last minute and breaking immersion & scuppering a strategic ploy. I would also be willing to playtest the change to see what the world looked like after 10 or 20 turns compared to without the stacks.

I think it was mentioned that we treat bodyguards as heavy cavalry for the stack composition rule for a number of turns (30?). That would be good and should be written up in 5d. But I don't think it is enough, as the AI factions don't start with any heavy cavalry at all, except their generals. We should at least give them what we are giving ourselves, IMO.

[Ignoramus]

I agree. Also, we will consistently have around 20-30 units of heavy cavalry due to RBG and family members.