I am also slightly concerned by the idea of allowing recruitment every turn in every province a person owns simultaneously. In LotR, it was not uncommon for a single person to own 4-5 provinces, and I think one person owned about 7 at one point. This means that even a massive budget surplus could quickly be drained into nothing by a single person's participation in a minor Civil War. While I do think financial issues are best left to IC discussions, the idea of someone who is not the Chancellor ruining the economy single-handedly unsettles me somewhat. I would like reassurance that people are ok with this potential scenario and that they are perfectly happy giving a significant advantage in Civil War to players who have managed to horde provinces.
I am ok with land being the basis of power - I thought that was the premise of the game?

I am less comfortable with one malcontent ruining the Kingdom's economy, but this is one case where I would say we deal with it IC. In that setting, why don't the non-malcontents agree not to bother recruiting any men and take what men they have to beat some sense into the malcontent? People who free ride and draft despite a collective agreement can be punished IC, if need be (denied recruits when the malcontent is brought to heel.)

I think the civil war = economic disaster feature is realistic and will create real political pressure for an end to hostilities.

Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
Settlement seniority is too complex, it requires us to keep track of the date when every province was conquered. Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.
Don't worry, it is easy to maintain a simple list of settlements in the order they were conquered. I did this in kotr, although it was by House:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...81&postcount=1

I am happy to do so again, adding dates of conquest. We are going to need a listing of which province is owned by who anyway, so adding a date column is trivial.

Instead, let the combatants specify which of their settlements get recruited first.
I am not quite following this - I can see players can list which settlement they want to have recruitment first, but the GM still needs some ranking to determine which player to recruit for first. I think your proposal might lead to a more complicated sequencing than province seniority.

However, I am very flexible on this. As long as it is by settlement by rotation, it does not really matter what the sequencing of settlements is. It could be purely random sequencing - Zim could generate a random number next to every settlement - and I doubt it would change much.

If we make it by player by rotation (so player A gets all his draftees before player C gets any) then the order will be more important - whether the player with 7 settlements gets them all on the first turn or on the last turn could be matter.

On that distinction, I should rephrase:

No one gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until everyone has had one; no one gets a third until everyone has a second etc.

to

No settlement gets a second drafted unit in the war (whatever turn it is) until every settlement has had one; no settlement gets a third until every settlement has a second etc.