cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: SPQR on September 07, 2011, 07:22:04 pm

Title: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 07, 2011, 07:22:04 pm
This thread is about ideas to help make the average individual strategus player more important and engaged in the game. Currently, the only thing the vast majority of the populace experience in this game is sitting in a fief transferring all their earnings to the clan occasionally. Here are my proposals to fix that:


Bring Feudalism to Strategus
Feudalism, as you probably all know, was the enduring political/military structure during the Medieval ages. In this system, power was distributed down the ranks in a layered fashion, with each rank swearing fealty to those above them. The King or [Insert Title Here] was on top and below him were the land-owning Counts and Dukes who swore fealty to him. Below the Counts and Dukes were lesser land-owning nobles who in turn swore fealty to them. And below each of these were knights and assorted peasantry. Unlike today, the state itself did not have a monopoly on power. Each layer (besides the peasants) had their own private funds and usually their own private army. They were expected to pay tribute to their feudal lord, of course, but each person down the ranks still had the final say on where and what would happen with their army and funds.

In strategus, on the other hand, the current political setup is more like a total war economy. Every player sends all their resources  in to the clan to form the the biggest dick-swingest army possible. There are two problems with this: 1) Its not realistic at all and 2) It's not any fun for the vast majority of those in it.

So, how can we change the political structure of strategus and empower the common player?

Three changes that I will discuss in turn:
1) Re-arrange Clan ranks and privileges
2) Change fief ownership rules
3) Implement a new taxation system and nerf transferring



Change 1: Re-arranging clan ranks and privileges
(click to show/hide)

Change 2: Changing how fiefs are owned
(click to show/hide)

Change 3: Taxation and Transferring
(click to show/hide)

Conclusion:
I know many of you will not like this idea because it decreases the power of the central clan leadership, but that is exactly the point. This game should not be a select few running everything and everyone else sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Strategus needs to be balanced so that the average joe can affect the game and have fun doing so and that is what I've tried to do here.

The idea is to make the individual matter. Medieval drama was all about conflict between individuals as they vied against one another for power, thats what makes it interesting, and thats what strategus should be about.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on September 07, 2011, 07:30:28 pm
i love you man, and I agree 110%.  Hopefully the devs will consider (and implement) all 3 changes
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Digglez on September 07, 2011, 07:32:05 pm
You've got some great ideas, hope to see some of them implemented.

Would be super cool if the transfers didnt happen instantly but instead spawned little caravas that had to travel on the map.  And they could be subject to attack by bandits/theives/vikings/etc.  Would mean people would have to better patrol their lands.  Players could spend money to reinforce their caravan from just wandering guys to horseback riders or maybe armored wagons etc.

Of course map would be need to be MUCH higher resolution.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Kalam on September 07, 2011, 07:49:37 pm
 I'm certain some of us would find ways to work around the system, going back to temporary dictatorships based on group assent or communism.

 The only issue I have with this is activity. Currently, we're able to delegate, delegate, and delegate some more. This means that no matter what time someone attacks us, there's always someone able to do something about it. If a fief and its garrison was under the sole ownership of one person who isn't online the day he's attacked...well.

 I suppose it could change the gameplay standard and introduce the concept of fully stocked standing armies, as opposed to the current norm of rushing to man and stock each fief as it's attacked.

 At any rate, if there was some way to make sure we couldn't return to the way things are done now, I think it'd be interesting.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 07, 2011, 08:33:00 pm
Yeah I'm sure there are some loopholes I haven't thought of.

I just see strategus in this vicious cycle of:

Strategus is boring for rank and file players -> they barely participate -> clan leaders have to do everything -> makes strategus boring

Anything that gets joe schmoe involved more is a good thing, in my opinion. Even if it means making things tougher on leaders in the short term.

As for pre-equipped armies and fiefs and I think we're going to start seeing that become the new trend anyway since you can't buy equipment out in the field anymore. Which means that if you needed to equip a fief you'd have to have a friendly fief nearby to enter and buy equipment for.

Of course once item crafting is implemented then "buying" equipment will be obsolete anyway.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Bjarky on September 07, 2011, 09:46:28 pm
i fully agree with 1 and 3.
very nice ideas  :D
nr. 2 i think it will backfire way to often on clans, given this is das internet  :twisted:
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Shadowren on September 07, 2011, 10:34:09 pm
I agree 100%! You have some great ideas and hopefully they are taken seriously.

 8-) Best of Luck 8-)
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Lt_Anders on September 07, 2011, 10:35:23 pm
That Idea, plus other changes would work MIRACLES. If the map had zones of control, then you could use Zones of Control Plus the clan tax idea to make things efficient.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: hotcobbler on September 07, 2011, 10:39:48 pm
Some very cool ideas here. Especially chief ownership. I think the ranks should be nameable for differently themed clans, and also should be flexible in number, I.e. max 10 min 2 ranks (highly layered vs. total dictator) and let the clan creator set this when making the clan.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Teeth on September 07, 2011, 10:43:02 pm
As long as we dont give people priviliges because of their birth, these are some good ideas.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Jarlek on September 07, 2011, 10:57:59 pm
Nice!
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Kafein on September 07, 2011, 11:17:48 pm
Very nice suggestions, I'm sure there are ways of exploiting/circumventing what the point was but still very good ideas.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SchokoSchaf on September 08, 2011, 12:30:37 am
+1

Add some sort of troop upkeep too.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Panoply on September 08, 2011, 03:20:41 am
SPQR, I like you. Can we be friends?

I'm certain some of us would find ways to work around the system, going back to temporary dictatorships based on group assent or communism.

Yeah, most definitely. Hopefully this system would change that mindset to a more individualistic one though. Count on egoism to save the day.

The only issue I have with this is activity. Currently, we're able to delegate, delegate, and delegate some more. This means that no matter what time someone attacks us, there's always someone able to do something about it. If a fief and its garrison was under the sole ownership of one person who isn't online the day he's attacked...well.

That's a good point. The clan tax will at least make it easier for clan leaders in one sense of micromanagement. Here's what I'm thinking... Currently, you can only "reinforce" someone by transferring all your stuff to them. Under SPQR's system, that would be highly impractical. In my vision, I'd have reinforcement more as if you're within the attack radius of a battle, you "combine" your army with theirs, but you still command your own roster and hire for it. Now that we have roster size scaling with army size, we could also scale individual roster sizes appropriately once the reinforcement timer is over.

Eg. If a knight is within range of a battle between an allied knight and some other party, he could reinforce the knight, but both knights would maintain individual control over their rosters.

Eg. If a knight is within range of a battle between an allied noble and many allied knits and some other party, he could reinforce his allies, and have control over his own roster, but his allied noble would also be able to control his roster.

In this way, if the fief owner is away the day it's attacked, any allies in the vicinity can still reinforce and take command of their respective rosters and form up some kind of defense.

This is more a concept than anything, because I'm sure I've overlooked a lot of things, but the details can be changed.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Panoply on September 08, 2011, 03:27:03 am
I've also been playing with the idea that larger zerg factions, while naturally getting more troops, would on average have less gold per troop and so be poorly equipped. Smaller factions, on the other hand, would have higher gold per troop, and so would be better equipped.

I was trying to come up with a simple way to make this work, without encouraging large factions to just "split" in strat, while remaining a single faction for all intents and purposes.

This proposed system provides an easy way around that, since you can just say... add a gold tax based on the number of vassals underneath them, that are kicking up troops and gold. Or what have you, but yeah. These are just my random thoughts. Yeah double post, but it's a separate thought from the previous.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Dach on September 08, 2011, 03:57:46 am
+100  :D
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 08, 2011, 04:10:18 am
SPQR, I like you. Can we be friends?

Sure. Just send 10 dollars to:

PO Box 1337
New Vegas, NV 11991

And I'll mail out your friendship certificate in 3-5 business days.

Quote
Yeah, most definitely. Hopefully this system would change that mindset to a more individualistic one though. Count on egoism to save the day.

That's a good point. The clan tax will at least make it easier for clan leaders in one sense of micromanagement. Here's what I'm thinking... Currently, you can only "reinforce" someone by transferring all your stuff to them. Under SPQR's system, that would be highly impractical. In my vision, I'd have reinforcement more as if you're within the attack radius of a battle, you "combine" your army with theirs, but you still command your own roster and hire for it. Now that we have roster size scaling with army size, we could also scale individual roster sizes appropriately once the reinforcement timer is over.

Eg. If a knight is within range of a battle between an allied knight and some other party, he could reinforce the knight, but both knights would maintain individual control over their rosters.

Eg. If a knight is within range of a battle between an allied noble and many allied knits and some other party, he could reinforce his allies, and have control over his own roster, but his allied noble would also be able to control his roster.

In this way, if the fief owner is away the day it's attacked, any allies in the vicinity can still reinforce and take command of their respective rosters and form up some kind of defense.

This is more a concept than anything, because I'm sure I've overlooked a lot of things, but the details can be changed.

One suggestion I've seen was in Kesh's thread taht I liked was an option to "link" your character to someone else on the map and travel whereever they go, like a convoy. So for instance, a 5,000 man army could be joined by a half dozen smaller forces, and they could all link onto the big army and automatically travel where-ever it went. If the convoy is attacked, everyone linked to it would automatically pool all their troops and gold into the battle. Here is the link: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,14443.0.html

It's pretty cool stuff, especially in that it would allow a bunch of clan-less players to link together into one giant roaming warband without having to give up all their troops/gold.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: PhantomZero on September 08, 2011, 04:35:32 am
One suggestion I've seen was in Kesh's thread taht I liked was an option to "link" your character to someone else on the map and travel whereever they go, like a convoy. So for instance, a 5,000 man army could be joined by a half dozen smaller forces, and they could all link onto the big army and automatically travel where-ever it went. If the convoy is attacked, everyone linked to it would automatically pool all their troops and gold into the battle. Here is the link: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,14443.0.html

It's pretty cool stuff, especially in that it would allow a bunch of clan-less players to link together into one giant roaming warband without having to give up all their troops/gold.

A combination of your suggestions, plus allowing knights to follow captains, captains to follow nobles, nobles to follow lords, would solve the problem of "Welp we got attacked and Timmy didn't turn in his troops in time." It would also allow people to keep their "power".

It would be a big deal for a land-owning Lord to come out onto the battlefield, seeing as he would have to mostly be responsible for running the day to day of his fiefs.

However, the problem with combining everything is what happens with the equipment and troops? Are troops just equally distributed back to the commanders? What about equipment? Would equipment just be used normally and whatever was left sent back to the original owners?
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Overdriven on September 08, 2011, 04:40:14 am
Some good ideas...I think I actually agree with them. Took me a bit of reading and considering the aspects of it all in my head, but the tax system certainly makes sense and is a very good idea.

Funnily enough your ideas combat a lot of the concerns I had in the thread chadz made about larger armies paying more for upkeep.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Overdriven on September 08, 2011, 05:25:44 am
Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of another idea, linked to an idea from that other thread that ties in with yours. It id my belief that one of the major thing strat suffers from is no real system of power. You highlighted the ranks issue, but i want to take it a bit further.

Basically the issue is how to sustain large armies, but give smaller armies advantages/more viability/power I.E the individuals in clans.

Another balancing object I thought of related to troop pay. Currently the system is that once a leader runs out of gold, the troops bleed away at a rate of knots. But this seems inaccurate to me. In large combined armies, individual pay not making it to the troops was a common thing, they wouldn't run away the immediate moment the army runs out of gold. A lot of this was for a variety of reasons. For instance, in Edward I campaigns, he had to rely on his lords providing troops for a fixed term. If the King went to war and it was approved by the Magnates, the individual Earl's of the realm were legally obligated to provide troops for a certain period of time, it was largely up to the Earl's to fund their pay and equipment and it was up to the King to fund the supplies whilst on campaign. In turn the individuals who made up the bulk of the army were required a fixed term service by the Earl's as well, for which they would be paid (but it was well known for this pay to be very back dated, you've gotta love the English ability to keep records). Once that time was over, the Earl's had the right to leave and take their troops with them and the King could do bugger all about it.

So the idea is this. Add a function that allows for the highest ranks (rank 4 in this case but this could need a new higher rank 5) to 'demand' troops for a war in a realm from the lower ranks. If the lower ranks approve of this, then troops are automatically transferred to the person demanding them, along with the gold needed to support their 'upkeep' (troop pay, possibly equipment). Once this has been approved, set a time limit for the main army to hold the troops, for instance 72 hours as a random example. This gives the leader time to make an attack and fight it. This could be automatically defined by code, or there could be options for the clans to agree upon. For example when the option to approve the transfer is made, a clan member could select either '3 days, 5 days, 7 days' and the gold they are required to send would be increased to cover the 'pay' for this period.

Finally, once this time ends a portion of the troops automatically transferred get transferred back to the original Lord depending on how many troops that Lord originally gave and casualties ect to the overall army ect. You would then have a time limit in that the rank 4 who demanded the troops cannot demand any more until this limit is over or if you redemanded troops again there would be some kind of penalty. For instance, perhaps the rank 4 having to pay a larger portion of the upkeep from their personal 'bank' of money on the second round of demanding and if they run out, it is at this point the troops run away, as this would reflect concerns that Earls and magnates might have when being asked to provide more troops for a longer period.

Of course this would require balancing of the original idea. You would have to limit the amount of rank 4's allowed depending on the size of a clan or add a new rank 5 that would essentially be a King. As in have all the powers of those below but could use this feature to gather an army, obviously there would have to be ways to 'over throw' this king if needed.

This is all very rough ideas I'm spewing out now, as it is 4:30 am here. But I was interested to see how such a system could be implemented in strat given the work that would be needed to implement it, as it was something many early countries had to do and it gave the individual Earl's and Magnates A LOT of power.

IMPORTANT EDIT:

I just saw the thing about allowing individuals to 'link' to someone. I think my system could be implemented with this. If the rank 4 who demanded the troops is approved by an individual, then that individuals entire force could automatically move to the rank 4 and the individual would have no ability to move it until this fixed term agreed upon was up or, perhaps they would have to stay within a certain range of the rank 4 who made the demand and so the ability to raid ect could be maintained yet when the main battle comes, the troops would be pooled. When this time ends they perhaps automatically move back to the nearest clan owned fief. This could be an easier way of managing the 'linking' idea without having to have constant communication.

Also it's possible that you would have to make it so that the rank 4/king received no more troops/gold automatically in your system once a certain portion of members had joined/transferred stuff to you and they were out of a certain range of the closest fief. You would also have to shift your tax % around a bit as well I think. I believe that in my system, these demands could only be made to ranks 2 and 3 because they would need to be the more active members. As such the tax rate for rank 1's should be higher to compensate for their inactivity, whilst perhaps the upkeep for troops in their rank be lower due to the fact they won't be able to maintain gold/troop ratios so easily.

Anyway, this is basically a potential solution for limiting large armies to rarer occurances of really big/important battles, encouraging smaller armies and individuals, yet reducing the amount of micromanagement/economic penalties needed to do it.

I apologise if that was long winded at all and not clear in places/a  bit scatty. But it's late and I only thought of this about 2 hours ago  :P
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Rogue on September 08, 2011, 06:51:59 am
This is the best strat suggestion ever!
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Panoply on September 08, 2011, 07:25:39 am
One suggestion I've seen was in Kesh's thread taht I liked was an option to "link" your character to someone else on the map and travel whereever they go, like a convoy.

Oh yeah, that's a sweet idea, I remember thinking that when I first read it too. It would be a lot simpler to implement than the one I suggested as well. I'd love to see factionless warbands. It shouldn't be too hard to build up on a simple linking system either.

A combination of your suggestions, plus allowing knights to follow captains, captains to follow nobles, nobles to follow lords, would solve the problem of "Welp we got attacked and Timmy didn't turn in his troops in time." It would also allow people to keep their "power".

It would be a big deal for a land-owning Lord to come out onto the battlefield, seeing as he would have to mostly be responsible for running the day to day of his fiefs.

However, the problem with combining everything is what happens with the equipment and troops? Are troops just equally distributed back to the commanders? What about equipment? Would equipment just be used normally and whatever was left sent back to the original owners?

Yeah, those sorts of details would depend a lot on coding practicality. I think ideally, you'd be able to separate tickets and equipment, and track losses individually for each party involved like in single player, but I'm not sure if that's possible.

Of course, the simpler implementation would be to just add each strat player's equipment to the equipment pool, and divvy up remaining troops in a proportional manner. I don't think that'd be too difficult to work out.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: hotcobbler on September 08, 2011, 07:26:22 am
Start a poll on this thread and get chadz's attention on irc, this has some golden ideas.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 08, 2011, 07:35:54 am
Start a poll on this thread and get chadz's attention on irc, this has some golden ideas.

Is that what you have to do to get chadz to notice stuff?
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: chadz on September 08, 2011, 09:23:23 am
I'm sold, more or less.

Also, I'm shocked that fief transfer can be done by the faction leader - looks like a dev bug, that was never intended :)

Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: okiN on September 08, 2011, 10:03:18 am
What, seriously? I never thought to tell you because I assumed you knew. :lol:

As for the suggestion, I'm afraid it doesn't seem to address the problem of inactive members spamming their leaders with free troops/gold. You may not get your hands on the stuff they have left over from the tax, but the stuff that gets sent up is still a big bonus, now they just don't even have to come online to push the button. It seems to me the automatic army link-up feature you mentioned later would probably make this even worse.

In general, though, it does sound like a fun idea.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: dynamike on September 08, 2011, 03:52:57 pm
Love the idea SPQR, it has a lot of potential!

I would like to have one additional rank however, to make sure somebody (clan leader) stays on top of a faction and make sure it develops in the right direction.

This additional rank "5 - King" can assign Lords (rank 4) and exist only ONCE in a faction. By having all fief owning members be rank 4 and having the same power as the clan leader, you create too much of a wild card and I doubt the clan leader would want to assign any fiefs to anyone but himself.

In our clan for example, our leader would be rank 5 while his "hands" and war council members could be rank 4. The rest of the officers could be rank 2 or 3 respectively.

I also like that you mentioned the idea of Warbands, as it ties nicely into your approach. Allow me to quote myself from the other thread:

(click to show/hide)

Anything that motivates smaller and individual players to participate more in Strat is a win in my eyes!
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Beans on September 08, 2011, 04:14:36 pm
Love the fief ownership idea. It could really help mix up the way things go.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 08, 2011, 05:18:30 pm
I'm sold, more or less.

Also, I'm shocked that fief transfer can be done by the faction leader - looks like a dev bug, that was never intended :)

I'd glad you like the idea. I did a whole lot of excel spreadsheeting to make sure it was actually a plausible idea and wouldn't destroy the economy or something.

Fief transfers can actually be done by anyone who is Rank 10 I believe. LLJK has like six Rank 10 players so its rare that any of us own the same fiefs two days in a row. Every time I log on the purple text that says which fiefs I own today is a surprise. Its kinda lame!

What, seriously? I never thought to tell you because I assumed you knew. :lol:

As for the suggestion, I'm afraid it doesn't seem to address the problem of inactive members spamming their leaders with free troops/gold. You may not get your hands on the stuff they have left over from the tax, but the stuff that gets sent up is still a big bonus, now they just don't even have to come online to push the button. It seems to me the automatic army link-up feature you mentioned later would probably make this even worse.

In general, though, it does sound like a fun idea.

Well inactive members could potentially sit in a city forever and give the leaders free gold but inactive players wouldn't be able to stay in a village recruiting a gigantic army anymore without even logging on like they can now. Because, all their money will be sent up in taxes eventually and they will be kicked out. So I think it's a fair trade-off.

My thought process is: what is fun in strategus?
Two things really: The battles, and building your little army

Now, currently everyone can participate in the battles, but only the top 10% really get a chance to build their own force. Everyone else is expected to turn absolutely everything in to the clan.

This way, even the lowliest player can still build up a little retinue of their own, kit them out in whatever equipment they please, and maybe start a fight or two if they see someone near their turf, or go on campaign with the army and help clean up stragglers. Anything to get them out of those damn fiefs!
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 08, 2011, 05:26:00 pm
Love the idea SPQR, it has a lot of potential!

I would like to have one additional rank however, to make sure somebody (clan leader) stays on top of a faction and make sure it develops in the right direction.

This additional rank "5 - King" can assign Lords (rank 4) and exist only ONCE in a faction. By having all fief owning members be rank 4 and having the same power as the clan leader, you create too much of a wild card and I doubt the clan leader would want to assign any fiefs to anyone but himself.

In our clan for example, our leader would be rank 5 while his "hands" and war council members could be rank 4. The rest of the officers could be rank 2 or 3 respectively.

I also like that you mentioned the idea of Warbands, as it ties nicely into your approach. Allow me to quote myself from the other thread:

(click to show/hide)

Anything that motivates smaller and individual players to participate more in Strat is a win in my eyes!

Yeah that would work fine too.

Perhaps it would be possible to have two different types of "Clan Government". If you assign a Rank 5, then he acts as King as you describe. If you only have Rank 4's then it acts as a kind of "Council" or Republic, where each has equal amounts of power and perhaps a way to "vote" on who gets a new fief.

For instance in the area where you can currently assign fiefs (the one with the pulldown menu) when there is an unassigned fief allow it to select who you want to vote for, from the eligible Rank 4 members, and click "Vote". After enough votes are tallied the fief is assigned to whoever gets the most votes (similar to native). Also possibly have it so that the more fiefs you already own the less voting power you have. So:
No fiefs - 4 votes
1 Fief - 3 votes
2 Fiefs - 2 Votes
Ect.

I dunno, just some random thoughts.

Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Dexxtaa on September 08, 2011, 05:32:46 pm
Excellent post. Top quality stuff.

+1

edit ; I also stole the top of Page3, there's important stuff at the bottom of page2
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: PhantomZero on September 08, 2011, 06:11:07 pm
Yeah that would work fine too.

Perhaps it would be possible to have two different types of "Clan Government". If you assign a Rank 5, then he acts as King as you describe. If you only have Rank 4's then it acts as a kind of "Council" or Republic, where each has equal amounts of power and perhaps a way to "vote" on who gets a new fief.

For instance in the area where you can currently assign fiefs (the one with the pulldown menu) when there is an unassigned fief allow it to select who you want to vote for, from the eligible Rank 4 members, and click "Vote". After enough votes are tallied the fief is assigned to whoever gets the most votes (similar to native). Also possibly have it so that the more fiefs you already own the less voting power you have. So:
No fiefs - 4 votes
1 Fief - 3 votes
2 Fiefs - 2 Votes
Ect.

I dunno, just some random thoughts.

Well you wouldn't need to add any voting to Strategus, I think that could be done separately. I would like the system to behave the same way for each clan, but maybe keep it freeform the way it is now, without hard limits on the number in each rank and such, this way people could still have different styles of governments. Any voting could be done on a clan's own forum or TS if they wanted a democracy or whatever.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Tomas on September 08, 2011, 06:40:32 pm
I like the aim of these ideas.  They are similar to what I was trying to achieve with my ideas posted in another thread - http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,13486.0.html

Your ideas however have the advantage of not screwing with the economy :)

I'd like to propose a couple of changes though.

1)  As pointed out by someone else - you need a 5th rank for the King/Faction Leader.  Only 1 person can occupy this role and they will always be awarded the first fief captured in Strat and must always own a fief if your clan has one (this is your capital and further down the line i'm sure people can think of interesting things to do with it).

2)  Rather than being able to award fiefs only to rank 4 clan members, make it so that awarding someone a fief is the only way to bump them up to rank 4.  This then seperates rank 3 and 4 people in a significant way and gives a real benefit to owning a fief.

3)  Faction Leaders should be able to re-assign fief ownership, but only if the current fief owner has been inactive for more than 10 days.  What if someone falls ill or for some other reason disappears altogether?  There needs to be a backup in place of some sort.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: bagge on September 08, 2011, 07:24:10 pm
superawzmidea
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Sir_Ironlake on September 08, 2011, 09:35:07 pm
+1
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Panoply on September 08, 2011, 11:49:43 pm
Yeah that would work fine too.

Perhaps it would be possible to have two different types of "Clan Government". If you assign a Rank 5, then he acts as King as you describe. If you only have Rank 4's then it acts as a kind of "Council" or Republic, where each has equal amounts of power and perhaps a way to "vote" on who gets a new fief.

For instance in the area where you can currently assign fiefs (the one with the pulldown menu) when there is an unassigned fief allow it to select who you want to vote for, from the eligible Rank 4 members, and click "Vote". After enough votes are tallied the fief is assigned to whoever gets the most votes (similar to native). Also possibly have it so that the more fiefs you already own the less voting power you have. So:
No fiefs - 4 votes
1 Fief - 3 votes
2 Fiefs - 2 Votes
Ect.

I dunno, just some random thoughts.

Instead of set ranks or anything, you could just impose a general fealty system, whereby players declare their fealty to someone. That someone could then declare their fealty to someone else. This would be a relatively flexible system of lieges and vassals. You have power to control the rosters of any of your vassals, or their vassals, and so on, but your liege or your liege's liege, and so on, could control your roster.

Each faction can make up their personal own titles or hierarchies; whether the classic feudal pyramid, an oligarchy of lords, or even every member sworn to one king. Personally, I would like to see penalties such that it becomes impractical for any one player to have a large number of vassals, such that there is greater distribution of vassals, and not just everyone swearing fealty to the clan leader. (Eg. A tax based on the number of vassals). I feel this would be more in keeping with the spirit of feudalism, as well as distribute power more so that relative importance is not concentrated on a few people, but spread around.

Of course, one of the major obstacles to feudalism isn't just the infrastructure, but is also a matter of changing the mindset of players. This can be done to some extent by changing infrastructure, but some aspects can always be worked around. You have to have players feel as if they really own fiefs, and it should be a grievous insult if a faction leader asks a lord to give a fief to someone else. Also, we would probably need to inspire greater loyalty just to one's individual liege lord than to the designated faction leader. For example, if a lord goes rogue from a faction, it should be more common for said lord's vassals and their vassals to support their rebellion rather than rein them in. I'm not sure how you would encourage this kind of behavior by changing the system.

Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: Panoply on September 09, 2011, 12:03:50 am
As for the suggestion, I'm afraid it doesn't seem to address the problem of inactive members spamming their leaders with free troops/gold. You may not get your hands on the stuff they have left over from the tax, but the stuff that gets sent up is still a big bonus, now they just don't even have to come online to push the button. It seems to me the automatic army link-up feature you mentioned later would probably make this even worse.

My understanding is that there is already a mechanism to combat inactive players, by reducing their gold and troops to zero if they haven't logged on in ten days. You have a point, but as long as you can effectively combat inactive players, then I don't think it's really a major problem.

If we dropped the automatic army link-up idea and adopted a system of reinforcement by combination (rather than transferring), then on the whole, this suggestion would definitely make it important for clans to have an active and engaged player base as well as maintain effective intra-clan communication. Wars wouldn't just be transfer all your stuff to the leaders of your faction and have them duke it out with the leaders of another faction. Instead, it would be important for all faction members to co-ordinate so that they can reinforce each other, or form or warband.
Title: Re: Bring Feudalism to Strategus - Making the individual player important
Post by: SPQR on September 09, 2011, 01:12:57 am
Instead of set ranks or anything, you could just impose a general fealty system, whereby players declare their fealty to someone. That someone could then declare their fealty to someone else. This would be a relatively flexible system of lieges and vassals. You have power to control the rosters of any of your vassals, or their vassals, and so on, but your liege or your liege's liege, and so on, could control your roster.

Each faction can make up their personal own titles or hierarchies; whether the classic feudal pyramid, an oligarchy of lords, or even every member sworn to one king. Personally, I would like to see penalties such that it becomes impractical for any one player to have a large number of vassals, such that there is greater distribution of vassals, and not just everyone swearing fealty to the clan leader. (Eg. A tax based on the number of vassals). I feel this would be more in keeping with the spirit of feudalism, as well as distribute power more so that relative importance is not concentrated on a few people, but spread around.

Of course, one of the major obstacles to feudalism isn't just the infrastructure, but is also a matter of changing the mindset of players. This can be done to some extent by changing infrastructure, but some aspects can always be worked around. You have to have players feel as if they really own fiefs, and it should be a grievous insult if a faction leader asks a lord to give a fief to someone else. Also, we would probably need to inspire greater loyalty just to one's individual liege lord than to the designated faction leader. For example, if a lord goes rogue from a faction, it should be more common for said lord's vassals and their vassals to support their rebellion rather than rein them in. I'm not sure how you would encourage this kind of behavior by changing the system.

In my first draft of my ideas this is actually how I had the system work.

I eventually abandoned the idea though as it seemed too clunky. I imagine everyone squabbling over who goes under who, and who gets the most active vassals, ect. That and some people may end up with lots of active vassals, and others with all the inactive ones and no troops or gold.

I dunno, I think if it could work, it would absolutely be awesome and a good incentive to keep players logging to maintain relations with their "vassals" and work towards gaining more for their own gain.

However I can also see how it could completely fall apart or be a huge pain in the ass/source of drama.