Successor game rules, draft one.

[TinCow]

I think you've misunderstood the rule. The "player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle" IS the player that the game chooses as the leader. There is no IC/OOC split in that rule, the person who shows up as the leader when the battle appears in-game is always the person that fights the battle. That's how it worked in LotR, and KotF 1(c) is a direct copy of the same rule in LotR, marked there as 1.3.

On reread, I see I misread your post. However, I dislike using the console for all of this. There is a very simple solution to this problem: if you want to fight the battle yourself, don't merge your army with an avatar that has a higher command rating. If you absolutely MUST have that other avatar coming along, just park them outside of the stack before the battle so that they join in as reinforcements.

[AussieGiant]

Yes but I guess that means we will remove RBG's and have them coming on as reinforcements to ensure the correct person is "leading".

I was just going to have all the young bucks in a stack by themselves, which is option 2 in your system econ. If we get attacked and are on the defensive then simply let the AI decide and hand over the battles to the appropriate player.

In this way at least on the defensive some of the guy's will get a shot at battles.

I would prefer not to use the console as you suggested econ.

[econ21]

I want to unstrike TinCow's initial reply:

I think you've misunderstood the rule. The "player whose avatar leads an army that is involved in a battle" IS the player that the game chooses as the leader. There is no IC/OOC split in that rule, the person who shows up as the leader when the battle appears in-game is always the person that fights the battle. That's how it worked in LotR, and KotF 1(c) is a direct copy of the same rule in LotR, marked there as 1.3.

OK, thanks - I think I did misunderstand the rule - so 1(c) should be interpreted such that the person leading the army is the player the game chooses as the leader? I'd assumed that since one player owned a stack, he would also be the one to fight the battle. But if we are going with the computer's pick, then there is no issue of one avatar getting traits or chivalry/dread for another player's actions. If there is a resistance to using the console - and I understand that - Dukes will have to use reinforcements as AG says.

[ULC]

I honestly do not see an issue with the computer selecting the person with the highest command as the one to fight the battle. Again, instead of making another rule for it, I'd rather go for handling it IC - maybe the Duke decided that he would have another act as his Adjutant General for the battle, or that the Duke decides that one of his officers could be used "elsewhere" and promptly removes him from the stack, creating IC tension as to why.

[AussieGiant]

Using the reserve stack for RGB's, while not sexy is a much simpler way than the level of intervention needed to overcome this in game mechanism.

It balances out very soon with a few battles and creates some interesting IC relations.

I would say one more thing.

These rules need to be ratified and posted formally before the council starts.

[Zim]

The rules are finished.

Also, the Council already started.

I'll do the rules/faq thread right now.

[AussieGiant]

Yeah I saw that after I posted.

I'm not fast enough.

[Vladimir]

On reread, I see I misread your post. However, I dislike using the console for all of this. There is a very simple solution to this problem: if you want to fight the battle yourself, don't merge your army with an avatar that has a higher command rating. If you absolutely MUST have that other avatar coming along, just park them outside of the stack before the battle so that they join in as reinforcements.

That's my suggestion as well. It will be a while before we have armies of 20 units.