The Glory of War

[notyoueither]

Where?

[Donegeal]

Internal Conflict Proposal

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?

[Meshelic]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Where?

[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]

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

[UnOrthOdOx]

Ennet,

The Kings do vote in the No Con, but only with one vote each (kings are a part of the council). The House of Kings gets votes based upon the number of pop points in the cities they control. This could lead to an unbalanced, unfair vote.

I also agree to regular votes for the High King (I do like that better, personally). But feel we should simply dissallow the possibility of taking each others holdings through force. No need to add a potential for bad feelengs between us. I don't think we will be having that much time to really plot out this kind of thing either, it is not as if we are facing the predictable AI. Let us focus such startegic thinking to our opponents.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
...regular votes for the High King (I do like that better, personally).

Ok, thats fine with me, but then what do we call the High Kings? Vice Kings?

Hmmmm... Vice King of Military Affairs. I like the sound of that. Any other suggestions?

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
...we should simply dissallow the possibility of taking each others holdings through force. No need to add a potential for bad feelengs between us. I don't think we will be having that much time to really plot out this kind of thing either, it is not as if we are facing the predictable AI. Let us focus such startegic thinking to our opponents.

Ok. We can throw out the taking of cities, but what about the part of fighting for over lapping tiles? Do you have another way to do it?

[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

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?

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

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

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

[korn469]

Ok. We can throw out the taking of cities, but what about the part of fighting for over lapping tiles? Do you have another way to do it?

diplomacy, but i have an idea!
maybe we could elect a supreme judge as well who would settle disputes like this where diplomacy had failed

[UnOrthOdOx]

This is a situation that can change over time. The tile should not remain in the custody of one or the other. It is in the best interest of the empire that the tile be used to it's fullest. For instance, two size 1 cities share a shielded grassland tile. City A also has 2 other shielded grassland, while city B only has regular grassland. It would be in the best interest of the empire for that shielded grassland to go to city B, AT THIS TIME.

Later, both cities have grown, and all these tiles are roaded and mined. City A is wanting to go for a Wonder. It is now in the best interest of the Empire for that tile to be used by city A to build the wonder faster.

Ideally, the two kings would understand this, and agree to share the tile accordingly. If a situation arises, perhaps a vote in the House of Kings would be appropriate.

[Ennet]

agreed to that!

[Panzer32]

I also agree to Unorthodox. We must try to concentrate our fullest effort to make our civilization the bect in the world, and we cannot do this is there is too much in-fighting!

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

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.

[Inverse Icarus]

the mini game is too confusing for me

i'd like it better if it were based on the in-game sectors myself