How about a VI PBM?

**gunslinger** · 02-21-2007, 19:24

Originally Posted by Innocentius

A provincial title can not be given to some random general with high acumen, only if he is a noble (i.e. a Hero, see above).

Since there aren't that many heros, and princes can't hold titles, wouldn't we be forced to hand out titles to "common" generals?

**Innocentius** · 02-21-2007, 19:59

Originally Posted by gunslinger

Since there aren't that many heros, and princes can't hold titles, wouldn't we be forced to hand out titles to "common" generals?

Well, you don't need to hand out titles at all really...Like I said, for the realism of it, we should only give titles to nobles (aka heroes).

Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul

I think this is a great idea and would love to join in, especially if we use the excellent XL mod with its variety of factions, but I too am somewhat unclear about the mechanics. Why couldn't a provincial ruler be both a provincial ruler and a general at the same time? In other words, when the King decodes to launch a campaign (or a Crusade), shouldn't this provincial ruler be expected to join the army/Crusade/Jihad with a certain amount of troops, and if he happens to be the highest ranking general in the kingdom, shouldn't he lead the army himself? In other words, I am not quite clear of the difference between heroes and provincial owners.
Back to gunslinger's question, I am wondering if getting new players may be a good idea actually. If the PBM starts and somebody misses out, why not create a waiting list of peope who want to join and get them in once a province is conquered or a new hero is born (such as Nur al Din for the Fatimids for example). Also I guess heroes will die from time to time, and I wonder if in such a case the player whose hero just died should be given a choice of a new one from a list of remaining generals. This brings up the question whether the green generals command should be used for a better
sense of realism.
And a final question - when a battle is e-mailed to a player, then how do we make sure the player plays it only once, in other words that he or she does not replay the battle until a favorable outcome?

To get the feel of a truly feudal system, all provincial rulers should muster a number of units for each campaign, yes. However there need to be no "effective" provincial ruler i.e. the title can remain idle untill someone suitable to take the tile appears. We should of course strive to have heroes with plenty of command stars in each province (or just good generals), but untill that is possible the titles will "stay put".
If a hero is indeed the best general in the kingdom he could of course lead an offensive army himself, but only unless the king has a few cowardly vices or for some reason can't command the army himself.

To put it straight:
Hero: A scripted hero or any general with 4+ starts.
Provincial ruler: No one really (except a player of course) untill a suitable hero/general appears.
So the system of these two being split will only really be used early on, as things change and we get more heroes and generals who can take the roles as provincial rulers or...er...I'm confusing myself right now. Like I said, if you know a better (and smoother) way of running this, please post it.

We could also do it like this: Let's say we play as England, and I play as Normandie. I could then (quite naturally) claim Tancred de Normandie as soon as he spawns. And later on in the campaign, when we've conquered a bit and a new player is granted with, let's say, Navarre, this player could have first dibs on any hero/general that becomes available if there is no spare general already as the player enters. Creating a joining list sounds like a good idea too.
I don't really know about green generals. It would indeed be more realistic, but might cause a lot of trouble if only high-command boys can be provincial rulers. So if use green generals we'll have to come up with another system for this.

Of course we can't control how many times a player plays through a battle, we'll just have to trust them. Although we could set up the following time limits:
The player must confirm that he/she has recieved the savegame within 24 hours after it being e-mailed.
If the player makes no report on the battle within 24 hours after the confirmation, it will be auto-calculated. The player's character will be held with the same responsibilty for the outcome of the battle as if he had played it for himself. If the player does not answer to the e-mail containing the savegame in the first place, the battle will also be auto-calculated.

**Kavhan Isbul** · 02-21-2007, 20:55

Innocentius, thanks for the answers. I personally like the rules you propiosed, just needed some clarification. I really like the idea and appreciate all your efforts, and I just want to help with figuring out exactly how it will all work.

Here is what I propose, along the lines of the already suggested rules - the King should be the one who determines who gets what province and initial troops. He should do that on the basis of whom he likes, and he would probably like people that follow his suggestions more than people who have a tendency to express strong differences in opinion. I think the King should interfere only rarely in determining what is built and trained in the separate provinces, and leave that mostly to the Duke he has chosen, to give the game a sense of realism and make it harder. I also think the Chancellor will need to keep calculations for each hero's income (if that hero has a province as a fief) - in other words let's say I start the game as a unit of peasants and get Tuscany as my fief, plus an allocation of the kingdom's coffers. Just for the purpose of this example, let's say my puny acumen skills make Tuscany yield only 200 florints per turn (keeping taxes high, also my decision). My unit's upkeep is 25, therefore my annual income would be 175 florints. If we agree on a King's share of one fifth, then I am left with 140 florints. If I built a watchtower the first turn, I would have a total of 540 florints in my coffers, with which to build buildings and eventually train troops in my province. I can always ask the King to transfer troops to my province (in which case I would be expected to take their expenses or split them with the King, whatever we agree), or ask for a gift fromt he royal coffers if it is decided that a Cathedral is needed in Tuscany (would be a valid request if we play GA mode). I just think such rules would make it tougher and slower to develop empires and blaze through the entire map in a few turns.

I wonder how do we limit the King's interference in one's inner matters. I think the King should probably have a say when it comes to offensive military matters - he calls the invasions and the Crusades, because otherwise, if we go back to my example with Tuscany, I may decide that I dislike my King and as a result launch an invasion on Rome, getting him excommunicated. At the same time, I think that for the King to interfere with what I build in Tuscany and make me build a border fort instead of that farm improvement I actually want, he needs to have the suppor of the other heroes, let's say 2 thirds of it.

There should also be a specified military obligation - I would be granted Tuscany in exchange for promising to supply two units of Urban Militian and a unit of Mounted Sergeants to the King whenever he deems it necessary for a campaign he intends or for the defense of another province. These troops or whatever is left of them are to be returned to me though, once the campaign ends or the threat disappears, unless of course I am given a newly conquered province and decide to keep them there (and this new province will of course come with a new obligation). One the troops are returned, I will still have the obligation to supply them for future campaigns, and therefore I should be responsible for retraining them as quickly as reasonably possible.

Finally, here is a potentially complicated situation. If a civil war breaks out for some reason, as unlikely as this is, who decides whether the rebels or the loyalists should be supported, and, what happens in case my hero falls with the rebels? This is a difficult situation to figure out.

This was a lengthy post and I appologize if I have gone into too much detail. I guess I am just excited about the PBM.

**Innocentius** · 02-21-2007, 21:35

Very good post, Kavhan Isbul! I agree with you about the pace of the game, it should be rather slow and full of political discussion and arguing that prevents us from becoming a blitz-machine like it's possible to do.

The civil war question is a troublesome one, but my simple answer to that is that we should have an out of character vote on who to support, and then we shall have to come up with a story for what happened and why that guy went rebel while that guy remained loyal.

Oh, I was also thinking: we must put up some sort of time-schedules as we can't possibly spend a few pages on discussing what to build each separate years. We should really put up ten-year plans or such, so that each separate year turns into a 5 pages long debate.

**Kavhan Isbul** · 02-21-2007, 22:44

Oh, I agree, but it would depend on number of battles needed to be fought. I guess we should organize it like this - one day should be spent in the forum - not arguing, but rather submitting players schedules (build this on turn 1, build this and train that on turn 2) various proposals to be voted on (if needed, as there should be certain things the King should have the absolute power to decide, such as for example who gets what province and which troops). By the end of the day everyone votes, and the chancellor can do the playing the following day. If there are battles, he quick saves the game and sends it to whoever needs to play it (most probably the King), and after the save game is submitted to the King, he has 24 hours to send back a save file after it is finished to the Chancellor. In the meantime the rest of the players can still propose things and vote on them, plus submit their schedules. Later in the game when there are more battles and provinces switch hands back and forth, the pace may need to slow down, but I guess the whole point is not to complete the PBM in a week, but rather over several months.

Now for the Chancellor - he will need to do all the hard, tedious work and he should get a province to keep him entertained (plus the Chancellor title once his palace is built of course). How about giving him the first conquered province (and adding to that as the kingdom expands)? He should also get one vote on all matters that require voting.

And finally, in order to create some inner competition and make the whole thing even harder (and more fun), I wonder if we should divide the starting players in 4 or so rivaling factions within the faction. The King and his royal family excluded (the King's goal is to win the game, kind of boring but still tougher than any regular campaign), we can have different houses of nobles, and at the end of the game we distribute points for battles won, provinces owned, total income, best general, etc.? There can be multiple players per each faction, as long as there are enough roles for everyone. And if a civil war breaks out, depending on the popular vote on who should be supported, one of the rivaling factions can perhaps elect a new King among their ranks, with the old King simply continuing the game as a regular player (we can later decide on the rules governing which faction is allowed to appoint their King). It might make the PBM complicated, but I just think that some purpose other than a final lesser/GA/total victory is needed in order to make this really fun - otherwise all players and the King will act in absolute harmony, and there will be little difference than a normal campaign.

**Innocentius** · 02-22-2007, 17:06

I agree on pretty much all you wrote Kavhan Isbul, and I really haven't got much to add except this:

I have been thinking and I think we should reduce the requirements for a provincial ruler. As the goal is to have one provincial ruler for each of the starting provinces (1 being the Chancellor) and later on perhaps a few more, it would take too long if we waited for all regular heroes or 4-star generals. Really, I think any 1-star general would do, as we should strive to give each player a certain character. Once this character die, he will be "succeeded" by his "son" (i.e. whatever name the general that comes next is called, this way we can't use the green generals though as every player's individual effort would worth nothing as their character dies).

The splitting of factions within the factions is a nice idea, exactly what noble families and what personal goals they will have be will be determined by which faction we end up with. I think we should discuss that matter next by the way, so we can get started sometime.

Here are some suggestions on what the King should have supreme rights in deciding (all issues not mentioned here would be issues to be voted on):

1. Marriage of members of the royal house
2. Military campaigns (Crusades included)
3. Handing out of provincial titles (really determined by OOC-discussions and joining lists)
4. Troop recruitment*
5. Alliances and such

* That is, if the King wishes province A to produce Spearmen, the provincial ruler of A has to construct a Spearmaker if there is none. The construction of all buildings not required for military recruitment demanded by the king will be decided by the ruler of A though.

**Kavhan Isbul** · 02-22-2007, 18:01

I agree with all the absolute powers of the King except for troop recruitement. I think the only way the King can interfere with this is to grant a player a provincial title against a certain requirement, which will have to do with the province granted. For example, if Tuscany is granted, its owner should be expected to have ready for the King two units of Urban Militia and perhaps a unit of some other auxiliary troops (it is a rich province). If Scotland is granted, than let's say two units of Highland Clansmen. The size of the requirement should be based on the income of the province - you cannot expect the Amir of Sinai to be able to produce and keep 3 units of Mameluk Horse Archers for example. To keep it realistic (and difficult), the King would only be able to gather a small army of specified units from his kingdom to join with his troops - he will have a complete liberty to produce whatever he wants in his capital province in addition to his unit of RKs. I guess the province troop requirements will have to be revised every once in a while to reflect technical progress.
If an urgent need for more troops arises, such as a Crusade, the King should be able to issue a special decree, requesting the troops he deems needed. If the King allocates the amount of florints necessary for training the troops, and then pays for their upkeep (not a big problem in the case of a Crusade), then this order should be followed or the King will have the right to strip the player's hero from his titles. If the King decides that it is up to the player to cover all training and upkeep expenses of the desired troops, then in order to be able to enforce it, such a decree would be put to vote and needs to be supported by two thirds of the voters.

Now I was thinking that a player may have multiple heroes, so that he can own multiple provinces. This will also allow the green generals command to be used. In reality, great commanders such as Nur al Din did not live for centuries so that they could later face the Mongols and finally conquer the Scandinavian Peninsula. It is true that it will be disappointing to lose a great general, but it would be nice to be able to get rid of that hero that just developped unhinged loon, secret perversion and gluttony in a realistic manner. Every player that gets a province will have the ability to eventually produce troops, and all these troops will be potential heroes, so if he starts with a 1 star, 3 acumen unit of urban militia, and later obtains a 3 star, 5 acumen feudal knights unit, then he would be able to transfer the provincial title to the better administrator and commander. This way an important thing is insured - players will be motivated to build troops as they would be looking to get a better hero, while otherwise they will only want their hero to marry a princess and to fight as many battles as possible (as this is pretty much the only way to develop them). Also, if an entire unit is lost during a battle (or a commander lost to an inquistor), players will not be out of the game, as they will have other heroes to resort to.

Finally, I agree it is probably a good diea to settle on a faction, so that we can agree on some rules, as what applies to the Danes may not necessarily apply to the Turks. I suggest we use the XL mod, simply because it offers the greatest variety of factions and troops and a GA campaign. I suggest we use a faction that has 3 or 4 starting provinces, so that a few of these can be distributed to players at the very start of the game. If we start with a one province faction, then there would not even be enough heroes. I took a look at what MTW PBMs have been done (although what we plan is quite different), and the following factions have never been done - the Italians and the Turks. I suggest we use the Genoese, because they have four starting provinces, allow for a slow paced game and have all the extras such as Crusades, the Pope and certain GA goals. The Venetians and the Turks have more interesting GA goals, but the Venetians start with only two provinces if I am not mistaken, and the Turks, once they conquer all of the Middle East from Constantinople to Egypt and establish a three province border become a bit too easy. So I personally prefer Genoa as it also fits nicely with the concept of players' voting on certain issues, but I would be happy with any faction that is not a generic, boring one such as France, HRE or England.