OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[GeneralHankerchief]

Perhaps, instead of including rules for secession in various "basic game" sections of the rules, include it in a separate "Rare but cool stuff" section along with civil wars. That way it seem too intimidating for a first-time player and gets the official designation as "rare" (which, I suspect, Ignoramus is correct on).

[Northnovas]

I would have to concur with KnightnDay.

looking at rules I had some concerns doing the Megas job and avoided it in KotR. Its actually not that bad or complicated and would encourage anyone else playing to think about it. However, adding any further complexity to the game regarding finances may not be in the best interest of the game at this point. I can appreciate what is being talked about and can understand the reasoning behind it but I feel it would not work on the level you would like with LotR. I think if you review the links of the test game it is self-explanatory.
Maybe a small game of players you could add that level to the finances but with the involvement of players and the fluidness of the game like LotR you won't achieve the results you wished for.

[Ignoramus]

Maybe if it was agreed that it was the secessionists' job to work out the finances(submitting them to TC to audit them) then it wouldn't add anything extra to the Megas load?

[Zim]

As mentioned I joined in the middle of a civil war, and one I think was in some ways more complex than some of the ideas discussed here (certainly more of a departure form regular peacetime rules, although somewhat mitigated by the degree to which TinCow kept track of everything and implemented all the changes himself).

When I first saw KotR starting I found the rules somewhat intimidating (the main reason I didn't join early on) but later all of the events of the Cataclysm (including the civil wars) drew me in. The great wall 'o text that constitutes the rules in these games became less frightening when I realized I didn't really need to know all of the rules to play. The hardest stuff is invariably taken care of by the Chancellor/megas and to a lesser extent House leaders. You can be as deeply involved or not in the rules as you wish. For my part I just had fun playing low ranking characters and trying to get into battles.

Getting back to the Civil War (more like the secession rules here than LotR Civil Wars), I think it had an opposite effect. KotR players then, like LotR players now, were always welcoming of new players. However, after the empire becomes big enough for all the players there is less of an urgency as far as courting new avatars. Everyone is mostly cooperating, wars are easy, and everything begins to slow down (even the Venetian War here has hardly been a threat to our faction, despite some big losses as far as armies and generals).

When I joined it was a fairly big deal which House I joined. Players weren't just welcoming my character, several of them really needed him. It was the same for deguerra as I recall. I was instantly immersed in an exciting part of the game and started out as an asset for the side I joined. I would have the same luck with my next character, but largely because I worked to have him join Outremer which was in a desperate situation (as a result of the Cataclysm). All the other fronts became fairly quiet after a short period of retaking lost settlements.

I think stuff like these secession rules are a great idea now that we've reached that point of no return, where we could probably take on the rest of the map combined.

I can see how the extra rules could intimidate people, but I think they'd have relatively little actual effect on new players, and that in fact an situation like a secession might provide an exciting backdrop in which new people could join.

Maybe some of the starting conditions should be dropped, and instead of anyone meeting the conditions being able to secede, it should be limited specially to one of the events TinCow has for the game. Players wanting to try it could talk it over with TinCow, and if it seems like there character is in position to try such a thing an event could be created.

To make things as easy as possible on the GM and other characters, the secessionists could watch their own finances, sending reports to the Megas. Alternatively, I would be happy to do it as long as one of the simplified proposals made is chosen rather than the original rules.

On a last note, we might not need the rules at all in cases like woad mentioned, where a neutral Megas could just make the decision what bones to throw the rebels. It's an attractive option since everything could then be handled within the normal Civil War rules. The only problem I can think of is that the bigger side could easily just install a Megas that would give their enemies nothing the next term, but that could just be the price of rebelling.

P.S. Just in case it was missed or eyes glazed over while reading that wall of poorly written text, I somewhat crazily offered to manage the finances for any upcoming secessions, assuming we decide to add them to the game.

[flyd]

TC is dead on. You can theorize all you want, but the only actual test of a financially decentralized game showed it very clearly to be completely impossible. It was so clear that the idea was completely dropped for KotR and never even considered or discussed for LotR. It would be unwise to try to drop it into a running game and just expect it to work out. Although I'm not too active in the game right now, I will use my OOC vote to vote down any proposal that adds accounting, until the completion of Cecil's Vassals and Valor test. If that test has a result contrary to the HRE test, then it might be worth considering putting in a very simplified version into LotR.

[Zim]

Well, if we have someone that is going to vote down the idea pretty much no matter what I better vote for it no matter how godawful or arcanely complex the proposed rules may end up*.

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well, not really, but I couldn't resist.

More seriously, if the secession rules don't include some method of making the secessionists more or or less self sufficient if they avoid being destroyed (which is pretty much guaranteed to add some extra accounting), then I'm not sure how they can be any different than an especially large civil war (if anything they'd be a bit worse for the guys seceding because of the moderately tough conditions to secede and the ability to go bankrupt, as well as losing non-contiguous settlements). It would just be a rather complicated set of rules added that don't do anything the current ones can't.

TinCow has already shown flexibility regarding gaining money from things like sacking (or seizing the "baggage train" of a defeated army) and likely could be persuaded into showing the same in response to reasonable requests by characters in a Civil War.

I like the idea of the Empire really being able to splinter as opposed to being limited to Civil Wars where one side likely completely controls the purse strings of all the others (I suppose a neutral Megas is possible but the larger the conflict the worse the fallout if he doesn't choose a side).
However, if it's going to cause a lot of problems maybe we should just handles such events as well as possible under current rules?

[Ignoramus]

TC is dead on. You can theorize all you want, but the only actual test of a financially decentralized game showed it very clearly to be completely impossible. It was so clear that the idea was completely dropped for KotR and never even considered or discussed for LotR. It would be unwise to try to drop it into a running game and just expect it to work out. Although I'm not too active in the game right now, I will use my OOC vote to vote down any proposal that adds accounting, until the completion of Cecil's Vassals and Valor test. If that test has a result contrary to the HRE test, then it might be worth considering putting in a very simplified version into LotR.

That is true. The test for KotR proved that going too far into the finances was waaaay too time consuming and would require that the players hire a full-time accountant to manage the game's finances.

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

I really think this idea completes LotR. Look what happened to the Byzantine Empire after the Fourth Crusade - it split into four rival empires. The fact is that the game has stalled because the intrigue has gone out of it. In KotR, the intrigue was kept strong by stable rival houses. In LotR, apart from a few conflicts with the Order and Caesar Ioannis, there hasn't been enough internal intrigue to keep the game different from a "let's conquer the AI with 20 intelligent TW veterans".

[TheFlax]

To further Ignoramus' point, look at the current situation. Ramses, YLC and Cecil have really revitalized the game by bringing in strife and uncertainty. Yet for those who want to rebel and keep their land, the situation is pretty impossible. Either they destroy all competition and establish a new order or they die. Success in this case is almost impossible without a large coalition.

With the many troubles and the large size of the Empire, anyone seceding with some of the more backwater provinces would have somewhat of chance of surviving. Also, with the state of things, getting three adjacent provinces would be pretty hard.

Nevertheless, the rules should be pretty straightforward and shouldn't be included in the basic rules, as suggested by GeneralHankerchief.

[Ituralde]

Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion!

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.

It would just be a rather complicated set of rules added that don't do anything the current ones can't.

Really, what are the net gains from this rule? Some huge number crunching added to the mix with the benefit that some special areas within the Empire can choose their own building and recruitment from their limited funds. That's all, or am I overlooking something?

Beside the point many here made, and on which I agree, that keeping track of income and upkeep is a very complicated task in the TW games, nobody has touched on the finer legal points that I am sure will come up as soon as any secession starts.

How does our current system incorporate the secession system? When will the money be reduced from the treasury? Will it be Prioritized Units, Secessionist stuff, Prioritoized Buildings and then the rest, or Secessionist stuff first and then Prioritized Units? What happens if one side spends all the money there is and nothing is left fot the other side?

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.


So before we run off and add new rules we should see how far we can go with the current ones. And if they are truly not sufficient, discuss the thing with TinCow and get an Event started, and only if those two options fail, then we should think about introducing new rules to spice things up.

I think we are far from having reached the true potential of our current set of rules and before we have done that I don't see any need for new rules.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[ULC]

Actually, that's not a bad idea Ituralde! However, what if say, someone were to capture Rome, and wish to be crowned the true Roman Emperor? I'd love to have competing crowns, but how would one work that into the Rules?

[Ituralde]

Eithe he settles for also being King, or he tries to force the new rank of "Roman Emperor" upon the existing Empire, while maybe at the same time removing several privileges from the current Basileus rank. There really are no limits here. All you need is to have 2/3 of the Magnaura on your side. Either by being such a great chap or terrorrizing people with war. The third option would be to threaten Senators with death, but that could get complicated.

Of course some agreement would have to be made on how this works as I can already imagine people hiding at the opposite corner of the world from the warmonger and then just vote against his proposals anyways. Mabye we should add something in the rules that the Magnaura has to be held in the capital. This would give a big benefit to anyone holding the capital in a Civil War with a huge army, as he would be able to "persuade" Senators to vote in his fashion. But that's really just rambling on my part here. I'm sure TC would be open to any suggestion if Senators were too stalwart.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[_Tristan_]

However, the way we are proposing contains only three things:

(1) The incomes of the secessionist towns be subtracted from the faction income.
(2) The upkeep of the secessionist units be added to the faction income.
(3) The secessionist get a certain amount of money per level of settlement.

Now that cannot take too long to add up and get the figures, in fact if people have a problem then like Zim I am willing to do the maths.

Iggy summed up perfectly what I had in mind when writing the rule. And don't forget that the secession would have to get a "war chest" before being able to secede.

I would add that I wrote the rules at the request of Tincow but I would be ready to play this as an event written by Tincow, as a sort of Civil War.

The point being to shake and stir things up...

[TheFlax]

Actually, that's not a bad idea Ituralde! However, what if say, someone were to capture Rome, and wish to be crowned the true Roman Emperor? I'd love to have competing crowns, but how would one work that into the Rules?

Isn't there already a Western Roman Emperor? The emperor of the HRE. How many Roman emperors can you have?

[ULC]

I am simplifying the situation actually. If the Pope is killed, then the HRE loses it's legitimacy, and whoever controls Rome is the real Roman Emperor, so therefore, it would only be 1 Emperor

[Ignoramus]

Isn't it fun to wake up to a huge discussion!

The following quote, though I must admit I have taken it out of context, pretty much sums up the feelings I have about the proposed Rule Change.



Really, what are the net gains from this rule? Some huge number crunching added to the mix with the benefit that some special areas within the Empire can choose their own building and recruitment from their limited funds. That's all, or am I overlooking something?

Beside the point many here made, and on which I agree, that keeping track of income and upkeep is a very complicated task in the TW games, nobody has touched on the finer legal points that I am sure will come up as soon as any secession starts.

How does our current system incorporate the secession system? When will the money be reduced from the treasury? Will it be Prioritized Units, Secessionist stuff, Prioritoized Buildings and then the rest, or Secessionist stuff first and then Prioritized Units? What happens if one side spends all the money there is and nothing is left fot the other side?

I don't dislike the idea in general but I dislike this huge set of rules that comes along with it. If you truly wanted some more priviliges for your corner of the world, why not just start a Civil War and fight for those rights. Declare your independence and fight any other Senator until the Senate allows you to have the rank of King, an extra rank that works along the same lines of being Megas, Basileus, or Prince.

This new rank entails the following benefits:
+2 Prioritized Units, +1 Prioritized Building, 2 PUs can be explicitly named (not just Infantry/Cavalry/Archers).

This would guarantee the desired benefits you seek from secession. Only this time you fight first, win or loose and then get the benefits. Instead of the secession system where you fight, immediatelly get the benefits, and then win or loose.


So before we run off and add new rules we should see how far we can go with the current ones. And if they are truly not sufficient, discuss the thing with TinCow and get an Event started, and only if those two options fail, then we should think about introducing new rules to spice things up.

I think we are far from having reached the true potential of our current set of rules and before we have done that I don't see any need for new rules.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Ituralde, I agree that the rule could become a nightmare if made too complicated. But like I've pointed out before, we are not doing anything drastic. We are simply allowing civil wars to have permanent results.

The current system makes almost all civil wars unsustainable. Whoever has the Megas wins the war. With that kind of advantage no one will start a war without a friendly Megas, and as we've seen we have had a grand total of 1 battle from three civil wars, two of them which involved at least half the players.

All the complicated things: prioritised units, prioritised buildings, who moves who avatar and what not do not apply to the secessionists. In fact, it would make it easier for the Megas, as there are less players' SOTs to worry about.

The financial side looks daunting, but I feel that too many comparisons are being made with the KotR Test Game. There, we were trying to micromanage each settlement's recruitment and construction with it's own income. Here, we are reckoning each secessionists' settlement as generating a set amount of florins per level. No fuss, no problem. You have a minor city? It gets you 1000 florins in taxes. As simple as that. Whether it has 6000 or 60000 people, it still generates you 1000 florins. You want a 20 unit elite army? Then you better make sure you have enough settlements to afford the 6,000 florin upkeep bill.

All of the adding and subtracting would take less than 20 minutes, and two people have already offered to spend their own time implementing this rule. It would not bother TinCow, it would not bother the Megas. All the adding and subtracting would be taken care of.

[_Tristan_]

Exactly, the brunt of the work falls on the shoulder of the Secessionist player.

It is up to him to keep track of what he is able to do with the funds at his disposal.

The idea has been trotting in my head since the Komneni-Tagaris war. Noone wanted to commit themselves because any gains would have been short-term only.

The secession cuts off any Megas intervention and thus allows Civil Wars to be led even when confronted with a hostile Megas.

[Ituralde]

But Civil Wars can have permanent results if you pull them through to the end. This way as I said you put the results before the actual War for which I see little reason. If people want changes and they can only accomplish them through war they should first fight and then see what results they can get. Long term results are possible, people have just not been willing to accomplish them yet.

Also to your Megas argument. You had a friendly Megas in power and still did not win the Civil War. Since people keep their PUs even during a Civil War they still have some means to sustain their efforts.

None of you has adressed where the funds will come from when there isn't enouh money to supply both the loyalists and the secessionists. It is good if someone else takes care of the financial side of things, but if the system is so complicated that the guy in charge of the finances could make errors we wouldn't be able to find out due to the complexity then that doesn't sound like a good system.

If you really fear that waging a Civil War is not sustainable, I would be open to changing the rules where you get a certain amount of income during a Civil War to hire mercs and troops and what not. But then there would still be the problem where exactly that money is coming from and what happens if the Megas decides to spend it on building a Cathedral for example.

[ULC]

Bingo!



What if we the secessionists were allotted "Mercenary Slots" - depending on some unestablished variable that pertains to their success rate, they can recruit a certain amount of mercenaries, and the amount paid for the mercenaries is automatically refunded from the treasury. IN this way, one could properly represent someone using their personal fortune to fight said civil war. This allows some independence from the Megas as well.

[_Tristan_]

The fact is that during "my" civil war funds from my provinces kept on going to my enemy's treasury (blasphemy, if you ask me).

As to having a friendly Megas, it surely did not feel that way, though I'll have to admit it was not hostile either.

The purpose of the rule I proposed is to give the rebel party in a civil war some kind of financial autonomy and also to make the loyalist feel that they are losing something, hence to spur them into action.

If you're the Basileus and you've lost three or more of your most valuable provinces, you'll certainly be hard pressed to regain control of them. It should be a risk-cost assessment about whether you're willing to commit X number of troops (with a cost of Y) to retrieve the lost provinces and their Z income of taxes.

As to the problem of the shortage of funds, the problem should not exist as the rebel funds will be part of the main treasury. And do not forget that bankruptcy will spell the doom of the secession.

[_Tristan_]

Bingo!



What if we the secessionists were allotted "Mercenary Slots" - depending on some unestablished variable that pertains to their success rate, they can recruit a certain amount of mercenaries, and the amount paid for the mercenaries is automatically refunded from the treasury. IN this way, one could properly represent someone using their personal fortune to fight said civil war. This allows some independence from the Megas as well.

I do not like this idea...

I prefer to have the secession rely on "real" funds as it leaves a sword hanging above its head. This is why I chose to require that any secessionist lay its hands on an "ingame war chest" by way of sacking or ransom or any other means that generates large amounts of ingame cash.

The rebels have all the facilities of their cities to provide them with troops without having to resort to mercenaries, though they still may do it from the mercenary pool and from their own funds.

[Ituralde]

As to the problem of the shortage of funds, the problem should not exist as the rebel funds will be part of the main treasury. And do not forget that bankruptcy will spell the doom of the secession.

During my term as Megas there was always more things to spend money on than there was money, meaning the treasury was always empty at the end of the turn. Sometimes throuhg PUs, sometimes throuhg PBs alone.

If I have the time I probably do it myself, but has anyone bothered to actually count the amount of taxes "lost" and the amount of upkeep gained for free? Sure the Empire gets your taxes, but then your army is paid no matter what. Maybe if we knew these numbers we could better judge how a Civil War party would stand financially.

Also you can always put your taxes as low as possible during a Civil War. I understand your concerns but I don't think the rules you proposed would truly solve the problem and then not without themselves creating a score of problems we hadn't thought about. Before anyone doesn't wage a full Civil War where he committs all of his possessions to victory and still fails due to the unfairness of the situation then I might be willing to concede some of the points. Right now, I'm just not convinced the benefits are worth the cost.

[Ignoramus]

If three of your best three cities secede, then you'd expect to be in financial trouble. If Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch went, then there would be a massive hole in the budget, yes. But that also would mean that the Megas and Basileus couldn't just sit on their backside until boredom brings an end to the civil war.

And the rebels would not get free upkeep. They'd have to pay their own troops out of their own money. No free handouts here.

BTW, all this debate is good for the game. Look at how many posts we've had today.

[ULC]

I do not like this idea...

I prefer to have the secession rely on "real" funds as it leaves a sword hanging above its head. This is why I chose to require that any secessionist lay its hands on an "ingame war chest" by way of sacking or ransom or any other means that generates large amounts of ingame cash.

The rebels have all the facilities of their cities to provide them with troops without having to resort to mercenaries, though they still may do it from the mercenary pool and from their own funds.

Thats the idea - sorry if I wrote it half-formed.

The idea is that it provides the necessary independence from the Megas - that is what is needed - without massive calculations. Say you sack a city for 5000 florins. This will be recorded down as your private war funds. The total gained form the sacking that would go to the treasury is removed, and the game continues as normal, until you wish to use your money. Like normal, you would pay for it, and the amount would be subtracted from your private funds. This of course has the negative side effect of subtracting from the treasury, but that can be fixed by adding the total back in - essentially achieving what we are after without massive calculations, without fear of a belligerent Megas, and with the benefit of control. We can add in Iggy's "certain florins for certain places" plan to sum it up.

[TheFlax]

Thats the idea - sorry if I wrote it half-formed.

The idea is that it provides the necessary independence from the Megas - that is what is needed - without massive calculations. Say you sack a city for 5000 florins. This will be recorded down as your private war funds. The total gained form the sacking that would go to the treasury is removed, and the game continues as normal, until you wish to use your money. Like normal, you would pay for it, and the amount would be subtracted from your private funds. This of course has the negative side effect of subtracting from the treasury, but that can be fixed by adding the total back in - essentially achieving what we are after without massive calculations, without fear of a belligerent Megas, and with the benefit of control. We can add in Iggy's "certain florins for certain places" plan to sum it up.

But with this idea, doesn't the Empire still pay for your troop upkeep? So basically when you sack you just get a bunch of money to recruit units and then the other side has to pay their upkeep, while they still have to purchase their units normally and pay their upkeep cost. Or am I getting this wrong?

[Ignoramus]

My idea was to simply cut the income generated by secessionist settlements from the loyalists and add back in the unit upkeep of the secessionist units.

That way, the loyalists do not pay anything for the secessionists, and the only negative is not gaining the income from settlements they don't control. Seems fair to me.

[TheFlax]

In case there was any confusion I was referring to YLC's idea.

I'm in favor of secessions being possible by the rules as long as the math is kept simple and can be understood by all players.

I think this rule would give a fighting chance for those who rebel without necessarily a political cause or and ideological one and still remain fair to both parties.

[ULC]

TF, the upkeep would be factored in as a cost - it would be taken care of much like the how the Crusade was handled.

The problem with civil wars is overall independence from the Megas so that you are not unable to wage the civil war. Otherwise, all you have to do is elect a Megas loyal to your House, and then go stomp on everyone else's anthills - there won't be a thing they could do about it, since they would lack the proper funding.

So, if there are to be any rules changes, IMHO they have to offer simplicity+indepedence. I think thats what my proposal is

[TheFlax]

If I remember correctly, in the Crusade the upkeep of unit was reimbursed to the Empire coffer by TC. Going that route still requires calculation, although to a lesser degree. My biggest concern is still that these are free units. This means you can just roam around and dodge other armies, fight only when you want to. With the secession rules, you have to defend your settlements or risk losing income for maintaining your troops. While its more complicated to manage, I personally find that idea more appealing and already two people offered to do the number crunching. Heck, I'd be willing to do it if it means adding more tensions in the game.

[ULC]

Well, my suggestion only took into account the training and maintaining of troops and the constructions of buildings. I then offered my theory be partnered to Iggy's for actual income. The idea is to separate the two incomes effectively so that the secessionist can have independence without hampering the loyalists treasury.

[Ituralde]

I still don't see why the current system is not sufficient for the purposes you want.
Income from your settlement would probably be negated by your army upkeep anyhow.

As I said before, if you want independence from the Megas declare Civil War and fight for that right.

If you only want Civil Wars then the current system has enough to offer as well.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I really don't see the problem. We haven't had one proper Civil War yet. Nobody steamrolled the opposition with a friendly Megas and no one was crushed because of an evil Megas.