Possible LotR Successor Game discussion thread

[ULC]

Well, we need to make the Houses a rallying flag to gather around. Say we have one that still holds onto the Old English ideals before William (Me, please, oh please, pick me for this one!) One who wishes to strength French ties, another who wishes to soldify power in England by eliminating Scotland, etc.

It appears we have several villains available (does my Heroic need to go back to the Old ways count me as a real Villian? ), and I might as well make a banner out of it - LETS PLAY AS ENGLAND!

I like Sicily and Denmakr as close seconds, leaning more towards Denmark. But the Issues with both are as summed up IMHO -

Denmark
Faces England, HRE, and Russia at most really, maybe Scotland as well. However, they have a rather linear path to fight that also results in a colony Empire - this would be counterproductive to PvP. They have nice units though.

Sicily
Again, many enemies to face, but a sharp dependcy on boats for ANYTHING unless we want togo at the Pope, whcih again reduces PvP because of distance, not really an issue with England.

I also would like the Vanilla mod as well, I've played it, and I like it.

-Edit: While I agree with your assertion that Rebellion should not truly be a dime a dozen, I am looking at it more from an emotional perspective and attachment perspective, not necessarily from a logical one. I want to eb able to rebel with a plan obviously, and limits based on rank could be imposed for recruiting mercenaries, but IMHO, the idea should be looked at first before being discarded entirely. I mean, what about those that simply do not wish to listen to a sudden mandate from their Lord that goes againt their principles? It's far to suddent to have planned anything, but by limiting their ability to repsond, you are eliminating the chance for players to dynamically choose HOW and for what reasons they wish to rebel, and thus reducing the opportunity for good fast paced story and PvP.

Again, IHMO.

[mini]

If you wanna play england, Ignoramus is considering starting an england PBM in the throne room

[TinCow]

-Edit: While I agree with your assertion that Rebellion should not truly be a dime a dozen, I am looking at it more from an emotional perspective and attachment perspective, not necessarily from a logical one. I want to eb able to rebel with a plan obviously, and limits based on rank could be imposed for recruiting mercenaries, but IMHO, the idea should be looked at first before being discarded entirely. I mean, what about those that simply do not wish to listen to a sudden mandate from their Lord that goes againt their principles? It's far to suddent to have planned anything, but by limiting their ability to repsond, you are eliminating the chance for players to dynamically choose HOW and for what reasons they wish to rebel, and thus reducing the opportunity for good fast paced story and PvP.

Again, IHMO.

There's nothing that limits that currently, it only makes success in that situation difficult. It just doesn't seem right to me that we should make a system where someone who rebels spontaneously and without any other support would have just as much of a chance of succeeding as someone who planned their rebellion for a long time and enlisted the support of many people.

This is just my opinion. I will NOT be running the next game, so these decisions are up to whoever takes on that job.

[ULC]

There's nothing that limits that currently, it only makes success in that situation difficult. It just doesn't seem right to me that we should make a system where someone who rebels spontaneously and without any other support would have just as much of a chance of succeeding as someone who planned their rebellion for a long time and enlisted the support of many people.

This is just my opinion. I will NOT be running the next game, so these decisions are up to whoever takes on that job.

True, and I would wish to reward said players just as much, but I found that one of the main reason I never openly rebelled - I had nothing to do it with, no resources, and could never gain any. Having only a bodyguard the vast majority of the time limitd me being threatening at all.

A possible cap on the number of Mercenaries you can keep would limit it's impact without making someone feel...well, utterly impotent. We need to give people the initiative to start to rebel and the power to do so without making it rather depressing when you are constantly denied even the ability to try to gain advantage and utterly slant the game in anothers favor.

I'd like to see 3-4 sides actively battle each other out in the Council sessions for control, and the ability of one side to tip things in their favor without it being utterly one sided - a dynamic civil war, rather then a brutally crushing one, makes people want to play them more. Nothing should be certain - one could have planned the whole thing, set it all up, and have everything go according to plan - one side loses out horribly and the other side dances on their graves. Not really exciting.

However, lets say that one side did prepare, and attacks - giving the otherside a slight ability to repsond dynamically, and possibly changing the tide, makes for a much more exciting and dynamic game.

However, one has to watch out for civil wars that go on forever - Dynamic can turn to static pretty quickly if it dissolves into constant warfare. This is why I think mercearies answer that problem. They are few in number usually, and with Caps on recruitment, one can make sure you can't get a full stack. They replenish slowly, making them a bit one shot. They are expensive, prompting one side to try and destroy the enemy faster. They are available everywhere. They lack the ability to build them up.

I just see it as a good compromise, and if anyone is willing, I will gladly test it out, to see if it works well or as intended. If not, then I drop it.