Stewards or Dukes?

[econ21]

Do you want the three starting non-Royal generals to be permanent Dukes of their Houses or Stewards until the King's sons/son-inlaws are ready to rule them?

In the LtC early campaign, France has five provinces and five generals (including faction heir, prince and three non-royal generals) at start, so we will have four initial Houses with a general and Paris with the King. The King has a faction heir, the Dauphin, a 19 year old daughter and two young sons, aged 2 and 1. One House - Aquitaine/Toulouse - will be led by the Dauphin. It is the fate of the other three that is being voted on.

If you vote for permanent Dukes, that is voting for the current rules. Each starter non-royal general will become a Duke and nominate his successor. Unfortunately, they will not have children spawned unless they marry into the royal family tree, so succession is likely not to be by blood line initially.

If you vote for Steward Dukes, then that is voting for the KotR system. Each starter non-royal general will act as a Duke with full powers, but then should step aside when a royal replacement appears. The royal replacements will be the two boys, age 0 and 1, when they come of age; and the husband of who ever the 19 year old Princess marries.

To declare an interest, I prefer the Steward system, but these the pros and cons of the two systems as I understand them:

Permanent Dukes:
- Makes the game more decentralised and feudal
- In medieval France, not all Houses were of royal blood
- The Steward system would give the King too much power at the start
- The steward system would make recruitable generals of lower status

Steward Dukes:
- The core of each starter House will be neatly represented by each of the four tries of the royal family tree
- Making each House dynastic will encourage "familial" role-playing, so brothers and sons will tend to be aligned together
- There are interesting role-playing issues around Stewards - do they step aside (think Aragon/Boromir)
- It makes recruitable generals of lower status

[TheFlax]

I'd like to add a few comments for considerations.

I've been digging a bit in the Campaign files and found out its quite easy to make the two boys (or anyone really) the age we want them to be.

As for the fourth House, the princess won't necessarily marry inside the realm. (Going by the current rules) I've hinted at it a few times, but I guess now is a good a time as any to say it, I'll be reprising my role as the starting princess. Nevertheless, if most players feel she should marry an RGB to form the fourth House, I will oblige. (And hopefully the king will also oblige. )

[ULC]

I'd like to add a few comments for considerations.

I've been digging a bit in the Campaign files and found out its quite easy to make the two boys (or anyone really) the age we want them to be.

As for the fourth House, the princess won't necessarily marry inside the realm. (Going by the current rules) I've hinted at it a few times, but I guess now is a good a time as any to say it, I'll be reprising my role as the starting princess. Nevertheless, if most players feel she should marry an RGB to form the fourth House, I will oblige. (And hopefully the king will also oblige. )

I challenge you to a duel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For non-steward dukes BTW

[TheFlax]

I challenge you to a duel.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For non-steward dukes BTW

Moi? I don't understand exactly why.

Or is it because you are too afraid to fight a man?

[ULC]

Moi? I don't understand exactly why.

Or is it because you are too afraid to fight a man?

If I am going to fight for your hand, I'd prefer do so so literally.

It also insures me winning by cutting out the competitors and the middleman

[TheFlax]

Lets keep this on topic.

For my part, I don't think it would be fair for me to have an opinion either way, so I'm abstaining. Both have interesting Pros and Cons.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Lol.. I had a feeling that you might go female again.. That didn't sound right..

[_Tristan_]

Voted for Steward because I prefer the possible tensions that might develop from the situation.

If we go for that, I'm all for modding the King's sons ages to higher values.

It will certainly detract a bit from the historal truth but then M2TW makes Louis (the Prince) an adult while he was born in 1081 (on turn 2 )

Sadly, both the two younger sons died in infancy.

Do you want me to rename them as well ? They should be Henri and Charles rather than Henry (english) and Michiel (which should be Michel).

[TheFlax]

I'm all for renaming them. (What sort of name is Michiel anyways. Seems like Michel with a typo. )

If I recall correctly our Prince Louis is in fact Louis the Fat. If so, I insist we call him that.

[_Tristan_]

Yes, that's him... Fatso.... But he was also called le Batailleur (the warmonger ?) so beware...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I'm all for renaming them. (What sort of name is Michiel anyways. Seems like Michel with a typo. )

If I recall correctly our Prince Louis is in fact Louis the Fat. If so, I insist we call him that.

I was referring to that!
Edit: To me Michiel sounds like a girls name so I would prefer a different name and Charles is better.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Michel may sound like a girl's name, but it is a legitimate French male first name. I can't see changing names just because they sound more manly.

[_Tristan_]

No, but Phillipe of France never had a child named Michel...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Do you want me to rename them as well ? They should be Henri and Charles rather than Henry (english) and Michiel (which should be Michel).

Oh, please do rename him to Charles.

[_Tristan_]

Oh, please do rename him to Charles.

???

[Zim]

Prince Charles?

???

[_Tristan_]

The man with the elephantine ears ??