Manifest Destiny (Discussion)

WARNING: INCOMING WALL OF TEXT... You guys asked for it though

Right, so I have had some time to consider the grievances against the Meta Game, and have tried to come up with some changes that I hope will suit everyone present. First though, we need to narrow down what the problems are;

1. Player involvement, this will undoubtedly be the hardest, as I strongly suspect that even if we do make it more player friendly very few players will actually become more involved than they are now. One possibility is to put the characters physically in the world and let them change things among "their" troop or "their" hex. The major downside to this is that it will effectively turn each hex into a mini event that will require a GM to oversee, and the last thing I want is to drag the GM's further into this (which is the main issue I have with Laisha's suggestions).

2. Reduce the importance of economics, much easier to address and honestly I think that Ana's idea here of fixing the hex value is the best way to tackle this. One thing I am sure that can come from this is more of a political dialogue between the Orders as they discuss the best ways of administering to their holdings (particularly if we GM's meddle a little and bring up issue like the peasants feeling oppressed or the Nobles feeling like they are losing powers), to be tackled by the Players as a collective.

So, what changes can we make to solve these? Please note that these are all meant to be taken together, they are just split up and numbered to make them easier to read.

1. Adopt the locked hex value (as per Ana's suggestion), this will stop the spiralling economic arms race. The current wealth of each hex is taken into account when determining the value. Low value hexes can be given unique bonuses for the controller, for instance a 10% cost reduction to building ships.

2. Remove the majority of economic buildings from the build list (as per Iskar's suggestion).

3. Influence determines the income, more than one Order can be present (to a maximum total influence of 100%, so Dawn could have 51% and Dragons 49%, but not 51% and 51%). The highest influence has "Controller" status, and where there is a draw then neither is "Controller".
--- Only the Controller gets to modify the income by their relations, the others just get their %. This makes it more important for Orders to defend their assets, and makes influence damaging raids far more effective.
--- Hexes pay out their influence % in value, modified by the below figures.

4. Buildings no longer change the base value, some may however modify the relations below (some positively, some negatively, however none will be purely for relations. A Red Brotherhood Cartel will reduce general relations but upgrade the strength of raids into enemy lands for instance), or a Sheriff will decrease the chance of revolts due to high tax rates.
--- A role for each remaining building will need to be devised.
--- We may need to look at the building slot system due to the reduced number of buildings now. Perhaps limit each Hex to just one castle / town (with the 2nd one increasing the base value or granting additional fortifications rather than slots?)
-- Reduce the general number of buildings available, make them more like the large complexes suggested by Saeros (ie a Training Ground will be more like a Regular Training Ground or even Estates).
-- Tweak the prices in line with new values.
-- Remove / modify upkeep?

5. Implement a hex and global relations values much akin to the recruitment system.
-- The "base" value is the "Global" number set by the Order and changed by their actions in the RP, subject to the supervision of the GMs.
-- Hexes have their own modifiers depending on what is going on in that hex, so for example, if they are being raided then they lose out on some Merchant relations.
-- QUESTION -- Should the different categories give a different boost to the total income? So will Noble relations be worth more cash than say peasants?
--- We can also tweak the recruitment modifiers to for instance make Peasant relations decrease the cost of militia units.

6. Orders can take particular actions to boost the modifiers in their lands, or "edit" those of their neighbours by spending cash or sending troops. The effects of these will be determined by the GM's, who will compile a list of outcomes for future reference.
-- We will need some examples of this to create a set of actions.
-- Sending players to actually oversee an action increase the effectiveness of that action, but they have to write their tactics out! GM will determine success and level of the bonus to grant (can be a lump sum of cash, further relations boost, or anything really).
-- Orders can send Player to "defend" against actions too, in which case players will then RP against each other somewhat like in the Arena, with the GM's determining the outcome. (This is as far as I am willing to go in terms of individual player action in the Meta Game, promising more will burn the GM's out as they will have to oversee what is effectively a mini event for each and every player.)
-- Remove "Zealots" from the non-conflict Orders (Griffons and Shadow Legion) as this will be linked to the actions of each Order against their rival. This is the price of their being more ideologically flexible.

7. Tax rates, Orders can determine what % of their Hex Value is used for recruitment, and what % is used for raising cash. The "Normal" tax rate is 100% total, however Orders can go above or below this, with resultant bonuses / penalties (so effectively the rates are 0-200%).
-- If an Order recruits too much, they risk upsetting the peasants and facing a peasant revolt, likewise Merchants may begin moving away if they are trying to raise too much money.
-- If an Order is raising more than "normal" tax rates, they face more widespread discontent, and possibly warnings / interventions from the other, more humane Orders.
-- Sheriffs, and like structures reduce the chance of unrest occurring.

8. The Throne Room. A problem facing Pendor will occur monthly, introduced by the King. Each time a "Chairman" will be selected from among the Grandmasters to present the "solution" to the King. Mordred will then apply a global modifier to each Order depending on the proposition. These effects can be different for different Orders, so it is in their interest to fight for their own particular rights (and it is entirely possible for the Chairman to ignore the other Orders... with diplomatic consequences of course). All players are present during these discussions, it is being designed to be like the introduction to the first major event (but without the ensuing 3 major events... there will just be a story outcome with meta game effects).
-- For example; there is rising unrest among the Mystmountain tribes. The King needs to deal with this before it becomes a full blown invasion, either by rising a joint force of Order troops in a show of force, or a major tax levy in order to pay for mercenaries / Pendor Royal Army to handle it.
--- The outcome in this instance would be that all Orders lose their pledged forces for a certain time (with those who under-serve losing Loyalist relations) OR that all Orders are made to pay 10,000 RP "War Tax".

This all went through a very brief round of discussions among the GM's, and Iskar raised the very good point of what should we do about those who have titles (and those who want them). We decided that they should be broken up into levels, and a reward linked with the title holder, for example;

Lord : 1 Influence
Baron : 2 Influence
Count : 3 Influence
Earl : 4 Influence
Duke : 5 Influence

Now, Iskar also raised a very nice point which grew from this;

Quote :

Starting from Outsider over Citizen to ranks of nobility might be a powerful tool to organise influence bonuses and rights to use assets of the respective hex (e.g. an outsider would have to pay high wages to hire even some militia from the local training ground/barracks, while a respected citizen or patrician of the city council would easily recruit some units of regulars and a noble would even be able to enact a levy of his own and get some knights to follow him, and we can do the same for other tactical buildings).

The ranks could also come with privileges that make it easier to hold the province. A citizen has to grudgingly accept the presence of other orders, while a council member (burgher) could use his influence to silently work against the intruders and a noble could just arrest them and throw them out of the town or castle (if the intruders do not have too many troops).

Now this is where we need your help. In order to get this Meta Game more player friendly, we want you to help us define just what rules and structures are in place, and how it all works. The jobs I see us (as in the GMs and interested Players) needing, are;

1. Revalue the map (I can do this)
2. Cut the economic buildings (Iskar has volunteered for this)
3. Give new roles to the buildings (Iskar)
4. Create the relation / tax system
5. Update the Influence system, and introduce Titles.
6. Create some actions for Players to undertake, so that we have a balanced system in place to act as a terms of reference for when they actually do stuff (for instance if a Player decided to bring in 10 Knights to assist in a planned raid, we can then see this already has an "action" and it will boost the chance of success by between 5-10% depending on the tactics involved).

Thoughts?

I'll give the whole list of buildings a treat, so numbers 2 and 3 are actually one topic.

Ok, cool.

Lots of great opportunities here!


Starting off with a question regarding #8. Obviously the Order garrisoning a town has some advantages in a military conflict. However, based on the experiences we've had so far, we're not an overly aggressive group, and we have to base this on this specific group. I'm concerned that providing defensive benefits might end up discouraging aggressive action unless it's really pushed, considering we have options for a purely political conflict now. A point was raised from outside conversations was that forced aggression is no more fun than a total lack of aggression. Obviously capitol areas like Valonbray for the Dawn or Sarleon for the Griffons need to be linked to a RPed event should control be lost anyway. To bring this to a head quickly: Are you guys confident at this stage that providing defensive benefits is not going to discourage aggression in general? <post-first-draft update: I'm more highly concerned with the wording of the quote about what it is to be at the noble stage, though the troop number disclaimer could help that. It makes it sound like we could end up in the equivialent of trench warfare. My philosphy for all of this is HIGH THREAT, which forces us to be either rational or irrational actors (necessarily dependent on our internal situation. For instance, the Dawn's lack of internal consolidation should make them act as irrational actors on the international (inter-Order) stage), as opposed to economic or dramatic actors. Basically making every order feel a bit stressed at not having enough troops to defend everything, and having to make deals and gambles in their defense, turning up the pressure instead of bunkering down. In other words, err on the side of too much threat and then scale it back/add defensive options should we end up having made it a purely attacking game, as opposed to allowing Orders to build up permanent defenses and then having to pull the rug out from under them if we should find ourselves dealing with a bunker mentality.>

Second, what is the process for determining who proposes the idea to the King? I love the idea in general, but is this going to be an electoral thing, a purely rotational thing, based on success for that month, etc?

Third, for clarification, you've mentioned pruning the economics list (not deleting it), but also having set economic values. So do you mean that every 'economic' building will be having political implications (boosting merchant happiness for instance), which means game-mecanics economics as opposed to IC production of wealth (like roads now) economics? Wow, I managed to confuzzle myself with that! Basically, do you mean 'economics' or economics? I really hope that makes sense, or maybe I'll be able to better phrase it tomorrow! Good luck answering this one, I'll cross my fingers at least!



Sidenote: For those unfamiliar with it, international relations theory has a very basic paradigm for classifying actors. If a state has high internal consolidation and high external threat is present, they are a rational actor. If there is high consolidation and low external threat, they are an economic actor. If there is low internal consolidation of the ruling regime (like for the Dawn) then on the international stage they are an irrational actor (as they must appease their domestic powerbrokers first, which means internationally they seem to be, well, insane). If both internal consolidation and external threat are low, they are a dramatic actor. (Think Venezuela. The regime's grip on power is weak, but there isn't really any outside threat, so they just kinda pretend that everyone is out to get them). My idea for the Metagame is to keep us at either the rational or irrational actor stage, as that is the best potential for story IMO, comedy from dramatic actors aside.

I spent some thought on the list of buildings and this is what I've come up with so far:

Warning! Wall of Text incoming!:

I have left out Town and Castle requirements as well as any type of income, cost and upkeep, because I do not know yet how exactly the new economy will work and what typical sums would be.

Ana Sulran wrote:

In other words, err on the side of too much threat and then scale it back/add defensive options should we end up having made it a purely attacking game, as opposed to allowing Orders to build up permanent defenses and then having to pull the rug out from under them if we should find ourselves dealing with a bunker mentality.>[/i]

Yes, I would love if we could have this, but how? Suggestions needed. The problem is that there are already ways in existence for striking out at enemies, but no-one has used them. The other is that troops are faaaaaaaaar to cheap at the moment, (so there is never a shortage) this will be addressed.

Ana Sulran wrote:

Second, what is the process for determining who proposes the idea to the King? I love the idea in general, but is this going to be an electoral thing, a purely rotational thing, based on success for that month, etc?

Third, for clarification, you've mentioned pruning the economics list (not deleting it), but also having set economic values. So do you mean that every 'economic' building will be having political implications (boosting merchant happiness for instance), which means game-mecanics economics as opposed to IC production of wealth (like roads now) economics? Wow, I managed to confuzzle myself with that! Basically, do you mean 'economics' or economics? I really hope that makes sense, or maybe I'll be able to better phrase it tomorrow! Good luck answering this one, I'll cross my fingers at least!

2. Rotational, i'll fix up a schedule of the Chairman Orders when I release details of the first issue.

3. A bit of both, we have some buildings which modify the relations of the various powers, which in turn modifies the value of the hex for the Controller, while other buildings will only produce resources (for which I intend to make more uses for).

Sorry for double post;

@ Iskar, could you send me a copy of that sheet via email please? So I can start fiddling with the hex values and costs. Also can I have the latest main spreadsheet too please, so I can begin to convert the current hex values.

For the issue of threat: If we're using the set value modified by influence which builds troops, balance the numbers in such a way that we don't have enough troops to raise influence everywhere we would like to. Of course we could end up in the same situation we have now where people only build influence in their home hexes, but once they hit the cap they'll have to start moving into other areas or mostly stop gaining in strength.

The idea is that we can't defend everything, or if we try to, we'll end up defending nothing. Do you recall the feeling in diplomacy when you have to end up striking a purely defensive alliance with someone mainly because you've mucked up and left them an opportunity, then you spend every turn trying to pretend that such isn't the situation, only to end up having to betray them before they betray you? That's the feeling I would like in the Metagame.

Basically make it so that the influence built by troops means we can only really focus on a few hexes at a time. This means if you try to spread out and keep your influence boosted everywhere, someone can mass troops and out-influence you anywhere. I would suggest making militia build very little, while Knights and Retainers are much more effective, but still not enough to effectively maintain a lot of hexes at once. Some shifting borders would be good for the project I would think.

Don't overdo it. If things are too uncertain orders will not invest anything in their holdings. If another order can every moment take your holdings from you, why should you bother doing a lot of RP and spending a lot of money and resources to build strategical assets there? The fix hex values will by themselves cause struggle because expanding will be the prevalent means of increasing your affluence.

A setup that right from the start says "You cannot defend everything" looks highly discouraging to me. It should not be possible to defend everything and at the same time attack another order, but if you have sufficient access to troops you should be able to defend your holdings. Of course sitting at home waiting, while the other orders expand and raid and plunder is no longer an option without the possibility to increase income peacefully by economic buildings, so that should balance things out by itself.

Perhaps we should modify the building idea so that we can build most of our buildings in our homebase, which we certainly will always want to hold? That way we don't have to worry quite as much about building up an area only to see it taken by someone else. I imagine that we'll naturally be focusing on building up only a handful of hexes anyway, but we could institutionalize that to avoid the situation you've described.


I stand by my original statement regarding my philosophy behind this, err on the side of too much threat as opposed to too little. We can boost defenses to balance it later much easier than we can pull defenses down later if we fail to create enough incentives.

Well currently I have these ideas;

1. Increase the cost of troops. Dramatically. Likewise with upkeep, if you want to maintain a large force you will not be able to do much else.
2. Increase the power of raids (particularly their economic effects), and perhaps have a building which permits plunder too (?).
3. Increase the cost of buildings, though not so dramatically as troops.
4. Decrease the number of buildings a hex can hold. This will force Orders to invest in more exposed areas to encourage further looting.

About the threat:

You'll just have to take my word for it: there will be enough threats in the future.

Will we be able to send troops into non-border areas?


I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, it encourages an internal/safe build up while leaving the border areas as more limited skirmishes (We would only be able to attack areas that either we border or a willing ally borders). On the other, we aren't states and this is one kingdom, so troops should be able to pass through border areas without any real trouble unless the controller attacks them (which would cause other situations to arise)... but then there is no sense of border or internal/safe area, and so we could fall into the problem Iskar mentioned.


I like the general ideas you proposed, Mordred. It seems like they will have the desired effects, at least!

Striking right at a core province should not be generally forbidden, but moving through a moderately guarded border province should come with high risks and penalties when the controller chooses to attack.

I would suggest each order names one province as the location of their headquarter and there they will get a natural influence bonus as well as a moral/valour bonus when defending it. Depending on the influence and the money already spent on the different provinces we could distinguish certain provinces as "corelands" of the orders.

On another note, I have thought about the rank system:

Rank	Influence req.	CH req.	troops available	resources avilable	(dis-)advantages
Intruder	0	none	none	none	mistrust
Outsider	5	none	none	none	none
Commoner	5	I	militia	timber and flax	none
Citizen	10	I	militia		+trust
Burgher	20	I	+militia archers	+granite	+merchant plot
Patrician	30	II	+regular swordsmen	+wine	+rally
Councillor	50	II	+regular crossbowmen	+spices	+council intrigue, bodyguards
Courtier	75	II	+special regulars	+iron	+watch commander, court access
Lord	100	III	+foot knights	+gold, marble	+arrest, expel (vs. Burgher and below)
Baron	100	III	+foot knights		+court intrigue
Count	100	III	+mounted knights		+arrest, expel (vs. Courtier and below)
Margrave (only in proper marches)	100	III	+defensive levy
(Arch-)Duke	100	III	+ducal levy (whole duchy)

Explanation of the (dis-)advantages:
mistrust: the populace mistrusts your order and everything you do will cost more money or require more troops
trust: the populace has come to know you, you can count on subtle assistance when dealing with intruders
merchant plot: as an influential burgher you know most merchants and can make life very expensive for your rivals
rally: as a respected patrician you can rally the lower classes against intruders and outsiders
council intrigue: you can use your influence in the council to work against your rivals and decrease their influence
bodyguards: as a member of the council you are provided personal guards (for player characters, RP uses only)
watch commander: as a leading councillor and courtier the city watch/sentry militia obeys your commands
court access: as a courtier you have access to the court which makes it easier to influence the nobility
arrest: you can command your troops to arrest rivals of lower influence
expel: you can use your authority and troops to (at least temporarily) expel rivals of lower influence
court intrigue: as a Baron you can use your widespread relations at court to damage the renown even of high ranking rivals

Titles above Lord are granted by the king for provinces where orders hold the ruling title of nobility. Provinces on the borders of the realm (coasts, towards mystmountains, jatu and desert raiders) are ruled by a margrave instead of a count. Being a defender of the realm the margrave has access to additional levies. Ducal levies include all lords of hexes that belong to the duchy and thus provide a strong force, but only for a certain period of time, as lords and their men will return home to tend to their fields and castles after some time. Defensive and ducal levies damage the economy slightly while active and can decrease standing with peasants and lords when used too often.
In city provinces which are ruled by a duke orders reaching nobility status will be handled as being the duke's chancellor, therefore controlling the hex, but not having all privileges (i.e. they are lords then and still need to be promoted further to access all benefits). If you conquer a city from a duke you will get the title of duke immediately.

Addition: In order to give the ducal courts some more meaning, it could be possible to (slightly) influence the other provinces of a duchy from the city of the duke, i.e. a courtier in Laria could try and influence the court in such a way as to deal with Gauntlets intruding in the Valorshield Marches (which belong to the duchy of Laria) and a baron in Avendor could even set up a proper court intrigue to damage the renown of the lord of Mistmire Castle.

Rank	Influence req.	CH req.	troops available	resources avilable	(dis-)advantages
Intruder	0	none	none	none	mistrust
Outsider	5	none	none	none	none
Citizen	10	I	Militia		+trust
Burgher	20	I	Regulars		+merchant plot +rally
Councillor	35	II	Special Regulars		+council intrigue, bodyguards, slander
Courtier	45	II			+watch commander, court access +arrest, expel (vs. Burgher and below), usurp title
Lord	50	II	Knights		claim lands
Baron	60	III			+court intrigue
Count	70	III			+arrest, expel (vs. Courtier and below), sphere of influence
Margrave (only in proper marches)	70	III	+defensive levy
Duke	80	III	+ducal levy (whole duchy)		+ducal claim

Removed Commoner - Orders would never be considered commoners, and I think you can merge their role with Citizens.
Why are you limiting the resource rights? I might also make certain hexes give resources and remove prospectors entirely (In order to balance supply and demand).
Influence level for most titles reduced (remember the max total influence is now 100, this gives the usurpers some space to manouver)
Influence gain will be slowed (but recovering from a failed attack will be quicker).
If the influence of a title holder drops below the minimum, they will retain the title until it is usurped.
Arch-Duke removed, this is primarily a sovereign title, and if an Order were to do that... well, the King would have words.

New Definitions
Propaganda - Allows you to diplomatically reduce the influence of neighbouring Orders to 50.
Usurp Title - Allows you to claim a title of higher ranks, note; they are very likely to fight back. If successful, influence increased to 51.
Claim lands - Allows you to diplomatically decrease neighbouring Order's influence to 35. This is frowned on by other Nobles unless you have a valid claim!
Sphere of Influence - Allows you to diplomatically decrease neighbouring Order's influence to 35 WITHOUT a valid claim.
Ducal Claim - Allows you to diplomatically boost your Order's influence in neighbouring hexes without armed forces being present at the rate of 1 per turn.

By tieing resources to influence levels I wanted to reflect that some resources were more valuable in medieval societies than others. Nobles would never allow non nobled to access the iron deposits they use to equip their troops. Luxury goods are not available to simple citizens and gold mines are privy only to the ruler of a province.

True, but it will seriously disadvantage the smaller Orders.

Depends on how we convert the current influence into the new system.

In light of this rank system I'd vote for entirely removing the training ground structures from the improvements list. We can expect holdings to have sufficient barracks. Already built training grounds can be converted into some sort of military infrastructure bonus allowing orders to maintain bigger armies and/or to pay lower wages.

Will we keep Chapterhouses as separate buildings?

Given the issues with the previous version, I don't think giving a permanent bonus for training grounds is a good idea. I would just ensure that for every training ground built, each Order has recruited those troops then remove the buildings. The advantage of converting them to a bonus would be too great in my opinion.

I think I will leave training grounds, I think they worked quite well before. Orders built them as they worked to enlarge their military, and they are a good way of limiting Orders from growing too large.

So the influence-built recruitment will be for Knights and Retainers, while recruitment of militia and the like will remain the same?

Yes, with the cost of Militia / Regulars modified by the influence, perhaps including their upkeep costs (which would mean Orders need to designate the "headquarters" for each unit).

I like it!


As to Chapterhouses. It looks like they'll serve as a tier-building, required for higher and higher titles. Is the purpose of slowing down title gains / requiring more investment necessary for balance, or is it just a hinderance?