Author Topic: Rathgar: Basic Concept  (Read 16221 times)

Finton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +4/-2
  • Erstes Imperium
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2013, 04:05:48 AM »
I'm not 100%, but I'd assume Chainmail and Broadswords would be medium while Plate and Warhorses would be heavy.

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2013, 04:09:46 AM »
Well unless we are handing out medium soldiers to everyone I can see lots of knights with light infantry only. If voting was restricted to medium and above that would exclude them.
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2013, 04:37:59 AM »
Yeah. Armored warriors would be the safest and easiest bet. I like the lance idea, but it may be too restrictive for some players that want force compositions different from the standard lance. If we can all agree on equivalent lance alternatives, I'd say that's a winner.


Formulate a point system based on Armour/weapon/equipment. Give every type of equipment that you want to count a number of points, then sum together how many points are in whatever is a "typical" lance. Then it is as easy as determining how many "lance equivalents you command.


So if you made plate armor worth 3 and chain worth 1, sword worth 2 lance worth 3 horse worth 3 shield worth 2 (random numbers for the sake of the example) Then a if you declared a lance to be 1 cavalry in plate with a lance, accompanied by 5 chain mail warriors armed with sword and shield you have a total of 38 points for a lance. Every 38 points of troops a player has, no matter the composition could then be worth 1 vote. Depending on the exact culture you go with you could declare some weapons or equipment not included. So that plate armored crossbow doesn't count, cause real men don't use crossbows or something.


Problem with this is that is is MUCH more work to deal with then for instance just going with the number of medium and heavy troops. I don't know if you can even see the weapon loads of other players, so if not it is also open to lots of lying.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2013, 05:03:27 AM »
Or something simple like .5 per light, 2 per med, 4 per heavy.
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

Aurelius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2013, 10:42:39 AM »
I love the idea of "one sword, one vote".  In practice, establishing something which is a base "lance"- say 10 soldiers with scale, shield and pike seems like it makes sense, and allowing substitutions (deciding how to determine equivalency could be fun).  It sets up in a simple way the military/political relationship of the realm. 


Would you be allowed to challenge your rivals to battle in an attempt to reduce their voting power?

Tan dSerrai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 866
  • Karma: +20/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2013, 11:23:50 AM »
I guess it would be possible to challenge others with the aim to reduce their power...however, what I would dearly like to see as part of this culture are challenges to others which result in the loser having to pay tribute, or to swear fealty, or to vote in favor of the winner in an election. Basically everyone has to guard himself 'for only the strong may hold power' - so vassals may challenge their liege, or vassals of one lord may challenge each other... heck, you could have a married couple challenge each other for dominance within their own immediate family!

This could tempered by exemption during external warfare - however, who then enforces these exemptions?

This would enable quite a bit of internal politics....I could see Marchlord A making a secret deal with count B agreeing that they would not challnge each other, only others.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2013, 01:41:46 PM »
I guess it would be possible to challenge others with the aim to reduce their power...however, what I would dearly like to see as part of this culture are challenges to others which result in the loser having to pay tribute, or to swear fealty, or to vote in favor of the winner in an election. Basically everyone has to guard himself 'for only the strong may hold power' - so vassals may challenge their liege, or vassals of one lord may challenge each other... heck, you could have a married couple challenge each other for dominance within their own immediate family!

This could tempered by exemption during external warfare - however, who then enforces these exemptions?

This would enable quite a bit of internal politics....I could see Marchlord A making a secret deal with count B agreeing that they would not challnge each other, only others.


Might I suggest that a penalty only be levied if the challenger loses. Personal experience is that people will abuse this in a way that feudal nobles would not. If you attach any sort of stigma on not accepting a challenge, all you do is set up a situation that allows the powerful to go around challenging in fights they know they can't lose. Either that or make the fights "even" by setting a lance limit on the forces each noble can bring into battle.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2013, 04:43:05 PM »
There could be a bidding phase of a challenge sort of like the Clans in battletech...
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

Bubba

  • Guest
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2013, 05:52:32 PM »
I think, in a trial by combat, equal numbers on each side are a necessity. The victor will be the one who recruits the best warriors, not the most. This also makes the battle an honourable ritual, rather than merely bullying. Honour demands that the challenged must accept, but tradition states that the challenger must fight with a fixed number that the challenged chooses, within reasonable limits which they both have available1.

I'm also moving toward cenrae's position that voting should include all light infantry, so long as they have weapons. One sword, one vote. However, after our rites of passage into manhood, only slaves and little boys could lack proper battle equipment, so if a lord brings such unmanly creatures to the assembly in order to pretend greater strength in a vote, then he offends the gods with his falsehood2.

I would also agree with Tan that we can challenge one another for tribute and votes, but on the other hand, we do guarantee each others' homelands against outright conquest. Our internal battles have honourable limits. We are not greedy lying savages like those Realm Alphans, after all!

Anyway, this is just my opinion, you are free to disagree... if you are a puny-brained weakling!


((1. Not sure whether single duels should be allowed, unless both sides agree. Bare minimum ten warriors? Maximum?


2. That is, no improvised equipment counting. I'd say axe and shield, at least.  This rule might skew our armies toward light infantry, but since we're primitives, I think that seems to be an okay RP impediment to shackle upon us. Besides, being able to fight challenges will ensure that any lord will want a certain amount of  honour guards composed of the best warriors he can get.))


Valast

  • Guest
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2013, 06:34:11 PM »
Thinking out loud here (ok typing out loud) on the ideas of voting.

I think we are on a good path with the voting idea...and having it based on warriors is a good method I think.  It makes sense from a community perspective because nobles will want to keep some soldiers home for the vote (this provides a standing militia at all times in case of emergencies)  However it should be very simple and perhaps even have a cap otherwise someone (most likely the leader or who ever the leader appoints) will have to calculate every stinking nobles troops at the assembly.

My suggestion to help keep this simple is to have it by troop type up to 10 of each type.  In other words if you bring 10 light infantry you get a vote, 10 med is another...heavy, cav, archers... one vote if you bring 10 of any certain type of warrior.  I do not know how many types are in the game exactly.

I realize at first glace this goes against the "strongest gets more votes" thinking.  Yet once you consider the buildings needed to have each of the troop types.  On top of this keep it simple thinking, it also will help to encourage strong nobles to supply their underlings with quality warriors.

If I have 3 nobles under me and I want a vote to go a certain way, it would be wise to make sure they have the best quality troops in the proper quantity to sway the vote in my favor.  I also think that having a max vote cap at per troop type will encourage players to bring more nobles under their banner.

To combat the abuse of that vote by players having many characters (if that is an issue) we could have each family provide a head of house and that is who gets the vote?  Then it would not matter if you have 1 or 10 characters, only the strongest of your house earns a vote...

It also takes away any disadvantage the realm would suffer during a war.  Instead of nobles being unable to vote while off at battle...the head of house is the only one who need sit out.









Valast

  • Guest
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2013, 06:43:23 PM »
I'm also moving toward cenrae's position that voting should include all light infantry, so long as they have weapons. One sword, one vote. However, after our rites of passage into manhood, only slaves and little boys could lack proper battle equipment, so if a lord brings such unmanly creatures to the assembly in order to pretend greater strength in a vote, then he offends the gods with his falsehood2.
---
2. That is, no improvised equipment counting. I'd say axe and shield, at least.  This rule might skew our armies toward light infantry, but since we're primitives, I think that seems to be an okay RP impediment to shackle upon us. Besides, being able to fight challenges will ensure that any lord will want a certain amount of  honour guards composed of the best warriors he can get.))

I am the first to admit that I do not know how everything works.  Heck I still do not know how some things in BM work.  So my question is... do we have the ability to see what sort of light infantry someone has?  If we do not then we can not tell improvised weapon troops from a spear with leather armor and a shield.  That is a big gap.  My very large post before this one was developed after thinking about that gap in tech/power.

If we can tell the types of soldiers apart by weapon or skill then I have no problems with that.  If we can not easily do so however then we are going off of someones word that they have weapons.









cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2013, 07:14:00 PM »
There is an issue with what one calls family in regards to character limits. Since we can name our characters anything wee want they are only family if wee make them so. With a ten character limit I could have ten different families.

I also do not think one can currently tell the difference between light infantry.

I'm also in favor of simplifying the citing numbers
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2013, 07:15:55 PM »
I'm in favor of simplifying the voting numbers in groups of ten. But lets weight the votes in favor of heavy over light. With possible bonus for mounted units.
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM

Bubba

  • Guest
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2013, 07:35:57 PM »
I also do not think one can currently tell the difference between light infantry.

Honour system. We're noble savages, after all.

No conscripts. That's the rule, and breaching it by bringing less than free adult men to the assembly is a grave transgression against the gods! Any lord who does that becomes ostracised as an oath-breaker, his lands subject to conquest by all honour-loving lords. If someone is thought to be cheating, we can check by asking him to drop militia in town, but that would be a serious accusation that might start a feud.

I'm still drawn to the "one sword, one vote" policy on simplicity grounds. In a war, we'd have a general or war-chief elected at the start with dictatorial powers. War is no time to be squabbling and voting!

cenrae

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Karma: +5/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2013, 09:16:10 PM »
I'm down with an honor system but what exactly are we calling conscripts?
Clan Skies | House Kye on BM