Rule change Proposals & Discussion

[LeoCordis]

I think the idea is game balance rather than RP. If people got loot and victories towards gaining the RP military ranks from bandits then, considering the amount of them, it would be rather silly. However, a rebel stack with a General/Family member inside could give loot. I think that sounds sensible.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I don't think there's anyway to spawn ancillaries, apart from creating RGBs and seeing what they get. I don't think there's more than three or four different ancillaries a character can receive on creation though. Family Retainer, Clerk and Spear Carrier are pretty much all I can think of.

It's possible to create ancillaries via "create_ancillary" console command. However, I really don't want to create ancillaries this way.

edit: Re Myth's victory over the bandit army, the rules state he doesn't receive any loot from the battle. That seems a bit odd, we're talking about an army that has just cut off our supply lines and trade, therefore it must be assumed they had gathered up a sizable amount of booty. It doesn't really make much sense only to get money from defeating factional troops, perhaps armies below a certain size not giving money would be a better idea (I don't expect to gain anything from having defeated three units of slingers, bandits or otherwise, for example).

I think the idea is game balance rather than RP. If people got loot and victories towards gaining the RP military ranks from bandits then, considering the amount of them, it would be rather silly. However, a rebel stack with a General/Family member inside could give loot. I think that sounds sensible.

I'm going to agree with Leo. Rebel armies lead by a General instead of a Captain could give loot. However, I see the brigands robbing products(grain, wine, livestock etc) rather than money or valuables.

[johnhughthom]

Actually I agree with Leo's idea as well, income from defeating rebel armies led by FMs sounds good to me.

[The Celtic Viking]

I propose the following rule changes:

RC 2.1: In the rules a line should be added that specifically identifies the Eleutheroi settlements are considered neutral.

RC 2.2: The rules should be changed so that diplomats are controlled by the Basileus, and that the diplomacy is governed by the Basileus and the Council through Edicts/Laws.

RC 2.3: Just for the sake of clarification, the Basileus rank shall be given another power that specifically says that the Basileus can command a full stack. The same should be done for the Kleronomos Basileios rank, which is in the same situation.

RC 2.4: The Kleronomos Basileios's first power shall be altered so that it specifically says that it is only applicable if the Basileus qualifies for that power.

(It doesn't make sense that the Kleronomos Basileios could do something the Basileus can't when he's away.)

[LeoCordis]

Can I state that RC 2.1 should mention that each Eleutheroi settlement is considered an independent faction and should be treated as every other faction in the game as well?

[LeoCordis]

Just a quick edit - sorry for double post.

I don't think it changes the dynamic of the rule that has been proposed, which is why I think it should be added like I stated. Along with saying the Eleutheroi settlements/regions should be considered neutral.

[The Celtic Viking]

Yes, that would have been better. Unfortunately, I had to close the session already (which should've been done two days ago) and make the poll, so it will have to wait until the next session to get that. At least the important thing is covered as is.