 |
| |
|
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
Internal Feudal Wars between Kings:
For every unit that is garrisoned in a city that is owned by a king, he has the number of hit points worth of "Battalion" to deploy in the city radius of that city. IE: a king has a Veteran 4/4 Warrior and a regular 2/3 spearman in the city. He can then depoly 4 Warrior Battalions at a 1 attack, 1 defense and 2 Spear battlions at a 1 att, 2 def Battlions anywhere in the city radius (including the city) in an attempt to claim a contended tile.
It does matter who has control of the tile to begin with. If King A has control of this tile and has deployed 2 spear battalions to defend it, and King B attacks it with 2 battalions of Archers and 1 battalion of warriors, we total up the defensive points of the defenders (4 in this case) and compare it to the total offensive points of the attackers (5 in this case). The battle is straight up, tie goes to the defender. Whichever side has the most points, wins control of the tile and gets to place his cities WF there for that turn.
If the city that looses the battle is trying to produce something vital, like a wonder, a needed military unit, or settler (basicly something ordered by the Emperor), then the Emperor can use Imperial forces to void the battle out and keep the tile in the original Kings WF. Every turn battalions will get redeployed by the Kings. Redeployment orders will be put out simultaneously along with $Mini-Game orders.
A King can also attempt to take another Kings City by force (thus the reason for deploying troops in the city).
Only battalions with a move of 2 or more may attack a city, and only if that city's radius borders the one where the attacking battalion comes from.
No King may posses more than 2 cities than the lowest King. If we have a Lord in our Population, then City caputuring is not allowed.
Tile defensive bonus, city improvement bonuses and city size bonuses apply (Only in 25%, 50% and 100% increments. The 10% bonuses are droped).
What do you guys think of this?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maollelujah
|
|
If there is a spot for another player in this group, I would love to join.
I noticed one disadvantage in the groups leaning towards the Ottomans. If the map is small/tiny or even standard most of the wars of conquest, err, wars of manifest destiny would be fought and won long before the Ottomans UU came along.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ennet
|
 |
Stockholm, Sweden
May 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by donegeal
In matters of voting, I replaced the Next Emperor with the No-Confidence vote. If an Emperor is doing a good enough job to not get hit with a No-con vote, let him stay! (for all your personal info, I do not plan on trying for the Emperor role as I am not a warmonger and wouldn't be sure on how to be one from the get-go).
Ok, now that I think about it, Just the Council should vote on No-Con votes. If we allowed the House to vote on it as well, the Emperor would just make the Kings Happy and say screw the Lords. I'll make that change.
|
I disagree with this, it's better to have a Empiror vote at regular times, ofcourse if he's good he might be choosen again but just because the Empiror (whoever it will be) isn't bad doesn't mean someone else can do it better. Besides, it's fun with some power changes in game.
And the other thing i think Kings/Lords should be able to Vote on no confidence voting but not start one, this will make sure the Empiror just dont make the Council happy  but anyways thats just my opinion 
//Ennet
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
i'm in complete agreement with the following things
*regular votes on emperors and high kings (or whatever we will call them) with the possibility of early no confidence votes
*each person get 1 vote any votes using tiles, population, or whatever for the minigame will be unfair compared to everyone having one vote
*no forceful taking of each other's holdings
donegeal
quote:
A High King of Commerce (your research and Finance) sounds like a possibility, but I'm still partial to leave the slider and Rushes/Upgrades in the Emperor's bag of tricks as it will be his responsability to over look the direction of the entire Empire. All this considered, we must remember that what I say does not set it in stone. Lets discuss this matter further. |
i still think we should spread power around as much as possible so more people will have a chance to get involved, really what is the harm in stealing a few powers from what the emperor has if it allows another person to get involved?
quote:
High King of Internal Affairs is actually something I was hoping to avoid. I like the idea of a City-King being able to decide on his own what it best for his city. After all, he is the King of that city. Let him decide what to do with the units his city produces |
i disagree for strategic reasons, it is much better to have two workers on one tile than it is to have one worker on two tiles, because you get the benefits sooner
quote:
High King of Military Affairs is a tough one. I was planning on using the Garrison Troops as a way to settle disputes between Kings over who gets what tile when (also to set up over throws of Kings). I will post another reply to describe my idea on this. |
i don't think that we need forceful resolutions to minigame problems, it should be a matter of diplomacy, and again i'm fearful of a meaningless minigame hurting our overall strategy
quote:
As for the Emperor proposing build queues for the overall picture of the empire, he can do that if he wishes, but due to Article I:A7, he already has the power to override the build of any city. |
i don't think the emperor should ever have the ability to override the build of a city except when a state of emergency has been declared by the high council, this will encourage more discussion and diplomacy, plus lead to fewer arbitrary decisions by any one person, and i still think someone (the emperor seems like the best candidate) should look our civ as a whole by trying to make sure we built what we needed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arnelos
Ghengis is right about the historical meanings of these words... but it seems that donegeal doesn't intend to use these titles as they were historically used, but rather to simply use them as a means of establishing that one person is "higher" in the social order than another.
I think it would be great if y'all in the Glory of War team modelled an actual feudal hierarchy somewhat akin to the Holy Roman Empire...
The "Empire" is composed of a large number of autonomous principalities, each ruled by a "Prince" (along with zillions of other titles, but that's beside the point). The princes gather at the death or removal of each previous emperor to elect the next emperor from among them.
The fact that this form of using elections among the nobility as a method for the succession of power actually existed in a very warlike historical empire I think would make it a good model for you in the Glory of War team |
Exactly why I think our system could be really fun. I think it would be interesting to see if we can run a feudal system and be successful.
It would have the capitalistic elements of the $Mini-game mixed with the electoral elements of the Democracy game.
To me it seems fairly simple:
The original team members make up the initial Council of Kings with someone nominated or volunteering for each game session to play the game until we get the first set of cities established.
Phase 2 would be assigning one city to each of these members, or having the members divide into subgroups (Saxons, Angles, Normans, etc) and give one city to each subgroup and rotating new cities to the members until each of the original members gets a city.
New cities would be assigned to one of the Kings (original members) by negotiation and vote: the assignment must be approved by 50+% of the Council of Kings. Unassigned cities are under the control of the High King (president) until assigned and NO city may ever be assigned to the High King.
While holding the position of High King that player holdings are in stasis and not involved in transactions in the $MiniGame. (This will provide incentive to give up the position and return to King status)
All personal troops and internal wars will be conducted in $Mini-game fashion with $Mini-game troops so as not to undermine our position in the actual game.
New members must be knighted by a King (original players) and start out as Barons.
We need to set a system of titles and holdings so that nobles can move up through purchasing of favors and deals and Barons can eventually achieve King status.
Once a level of peerage has been achieved you cannot be demoted to a lower title unless a 75% vote to do so of the House of Lords is passed.
Those our just general ramblings, but I feel the president should be the High King, the original and hisghest ranking in peerage be Kings, and secondary game players be Ministers.
For example, an original member in charge of diplomacy would be King JoJo, Minister of Diplomacy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, don't you warmongers have a team logo ? |
Not yet, I can't get anything that small to look decent as I don't have a decent graphics editor. Aro is working it, perhaps Ghengis too.
quote:
Saxon and Norman? I thought you guys wanted to play the Celts, not the English |
Ghengis was just making an example, and I was only showing a little family pride.
Last edited by UnOrthOdOx on 08-11-2002 at 19:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
|
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
i'm in complete agreement with the following things
*regular votes on emperors and high kings (or whatever we will call them) with the possibility of early no confidence votes
*each person get 1 vote any votes using tiles, population, or whatever for the minigame will be unfair compared to everyone having one vote
*no forceful taking of each other's holdings
donegeal
i still think we should spread power around as much as possible so more people will have a chance to get involved, really what is the harm in stealing a few powers from what the emperor has if it allows another person to get involved?
i disagree for strategic reasons, it is much better to have two workers on one tile than it is to have one worker on two tiles, because you get the benefits sooner
i don't think that we need forceful resolutions to minigame problems, it should be a matter of diplomacy, and again i'm fearful of a meaningless minigame hurting our overall strategy
i don't think the emperor should ever have the ability to override the build of a city except when a state of emergency has been declared by the high council, this will encourage more discussion and diplomacy, plus lead to fewer arbitrary decisions by any one person, and i still think someone (the emperor seems like the best candidate) should look our civ as a whole by trying to make sure we built what we needed |
What you are suggesting is in essence the SP DG that is being played. Everything you mentioned is politically correct and does a great job of spreading the power and forming a cohesive mind. However, I will quote a movie to agrue why the Emperor/High King/Ruler should have more power for a warmonger team:
quote:
From a Navel Captian to his First Officer
We are here to defend Democracy, not to practice it. |
We are in this team to fight and War with others. We are a Warmonger team and State. War and Military require a defined rank structure in order to operate. I see our Ruler as the General of our Army. The High/Vice/whatever Kings as a Full Bird Cornel, our Kings as Captians and Lords as Lieutenants (yes I am in the Military). I think we should leave the treasury in the hands of our ruler, so he can directed us as the Army that we are to victory over all others.
Now Making a Minister/High/Vice King of Internal affairs is probably a good thing (the two workers are better than one arguement cannot be contested), but remember that this takes power away from the King's of the cities, not the ruler. If we do have a whogeewhatsit of Internal Affairs, and we give the build Queues to the Ruler, then the City-King's have no power. It will eliminate the $mini-game as a factor and participation by all members of the team (except for the ruler and whogeewhatsit ministers). Again, look at the SP DG, this was the case with My Piña Colada thread. I was selected to be a Regional Administrator and I proceeded to put down my orders for the cities I controled and was subsequentialy told to go blow myself on each account. What I did stoped making a difference. I made less and less atempts to do anything until I have come to the point where I am now. The game hardly interests me any more.
Let the City-Kings control their cities builds and queues so they feel like they are doing something constructive in the game. Leave the Ruler the power to override these builds so he can guide the Empire to Victory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
|
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
If we work the $mini-game (on a city system, not individual tiles) and Feudal tile fighting scheme inconjuction with one another, we will end up with each King wanting to both Improve his Cities infrastructure (ie: Markets increase the amount of gold produced, Courthouses decrease the amount of Corruption and waste, and we can even work sci beakers into the $mini-game to make Libraries desired in cities) and to maintain a strong military. I think kings will want their cities to be balanced, and it will be the Rulers responability to guide the Empire by telling a King that "I'm sorry, but I need you to build a settler for the good of the Empire.". This will piss people off (as getting told what to do usually does), but then I saw someone's signature that read "being responsable means pissing people off" This is a good example of that.
Now having a set amount of time for the Ruler sounds perfectly reasonable, but I don't see why we would need to implement one if we have the No-Con rule. You think the current ruler is doing fine, but you think you could do better, call a No-Con vote and explain why. Calling a No-Con vote does not have to mean that you think someone is doing poorly or that you really don't have confidence in him, it just means that you want a change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
We are in this team to fight and War with others. We are a Warmonger team and State. War and Military require a defined rank structure in order to operate. I see our Ruler as the General of our Army. The High/Vice/whatever Kings as a Full Bird Cornel, our Kings as Captians and Lords as Lieutenants (yes I am in the Military). I think we should leave the treasury in the hands of our ruler, so he can directed us as the Army that we are to victory over all others. |
i agree in principle, especially that we need to focus our resources and use them wisely, chaos is the one controlable factor that can hurt us the most, but unlike the military we are all equally qualifed to give an opinion on our team's overall strategy, additionally even if the emperor didn't have any direct powers except to play the game and appoint the ministers that would still be quite a bit of power
also as far as the military analogy goes, in all healthy democracies the military is under civilian control, and in the American military the chain of command is something like this President --> Secretary of Defense --> Secretary of the Army iirc --> Then actual generals
we need to spread power around as much as we possibly can, while balancing control with participation
too much participation which results in chaos and poor game performance for our team is one bad outcome
the other would be a good game performance but too much control in one person's hands which result in too little participation
quote:
If we do have a whogeewhatsit of Internal Affairs, and we give the build Queues to the Ruler, then the City-King's have no power. |
read my proposal again, i did not take the build queues away from the city-kings, i said the Emperor should propose a build queue, and i should have specified more, but this proposal should be completely non-binding and the emperor should never be able to over ride a city king's choice except if the city king was derelect in their duties and they did not submit orders to the emperor, proposing a build order is kinda like when the president proposes legislation, it might get passed or not, but it sums up their governing vision
also here is an idea...we should reserve both the capital, this city is never sold to any one city king, whoever is the emperor gets to exercise control of the capital
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
|
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
Here's a make-shift attempt at an icon (it sure is hard to make something that looks like anything that small).
It was supposed to be a banner with a crown, I'll try something else...........
 Attachment: gofw2.gif
This has been downloaded 63 time(s).
Last edited by GhengisFarb on 09-11-2002 at 04:35
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2002 11:43
)
), I would be tempted to play with you 
|
