Diplomacy - The South, Turn 14 (Year 4, Months 4-6, Summer)

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

Well it's actually 36 river to 32((maybe 33)) west so I could throw those two into the west to balance the two regions were the perk is building stuff

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

More evened out region number: http://i.imgur.com/el6jRZu.jpg

[Leonardo]

Beautiful

Leo no longer has any complaints, and good riddance IMO, he's a mouthy bastard

ALL HAIL SYV ALDLARK, leader of hosts and host of leaders

May the father bless his rule!

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

Eh let's wait till a couple turns in before we claim that :P

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/117886-diplomacy-40-the-midderlands-signups/

Any more rule concerns should be posted here still. Hopefully we'll have any issues hashed out before enough people sign up.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Last complaints from me.

On the map.

1. Do something about the two rivers connected to the God's Eye. It just hurts my brain seeing them end in nothingness. :D

If you want to keep them as an impassable border, just redirect the Blackwater rush to the south of Blackwater Hill.

2. I change my mind about the third passage. The Westerlands should have a third door - and since Crakehall can't serve (because the Reach is closed) I now see the logic in opening another one at Baneford.

3. I know it's just a name issue, but it also hurts my brain - change the places of Deep Denn and Brent Brook please. And correct the border there so that only Deep Denn can be accessible from Stoney Sept (seal the border with Riverspring) - if that looks like too powerfull a position, just open the border with Pinkmaiden as well.

4. The Tooth - Deep - Hills debate. Please, change those three regions in such a way that the Golden Tooth is the only one accessible from the Riverlands and the other two are hidden behind it.

5. And lastly - I like all the starting sets, except Chiltern. For some reason I think it will be a very fucked up position to start at - because it controls the way into the Vale. I have no idea how this can be fixed, but can you spare an hour or so thinking about it?

I'll read through the rules and post my thoughts on them in the next few hours.

Also, I'll start PMing all potential players.

[TheCrannogDweller]

On the rules.

Legacy Points

1. What happens if a player actually gets to 100 Legacy points? Does the game end?

House Creation

2. On the Lord's age - shouldn't we start him at 18, not at 20-25?

Regional Traits

3. Why the limitation on the Reavers trait to apply to only 1 region per turn?

Alliances and Trading

4. If you want to put some limits on the squires, why not also set a maximum age? So a squire can be a male character between 12 and 18.

5. NATs have nothing to do with lands (unless you want to change them). They are supposed to be only for troops. You can take the definition I used from here.

Also, there was some talk about another sort of alliance agreement, one of the provisions of which would be to allow nobles to come and go from each other's castles without the need for a confirmation every time.

6. The trading rule is too strong. Just make it that one player can give another player no more than 4 units, as I suggested. This is more limiting to the small, unofficial alliances, rather than the big ones.

And anyway, how are you going to enforce the version you have? If I decide to send Leo 2/2, are you just going to tell me "he was already traded the maximum limit" thus confirming the existance of a secret trade?

7. Oaths of Fealty, scenario 2 - I think this contradicts the King powers you have in another section.

Army and Combat

8. I'm not sure about the "1500 men require a general" rule. It looks random to me.

If we want to make attacking worth more to the player, let's just make it a blanket rule - if any army wants to move outside of its own regions, it needs a general to lead it. However, this shouldn't apply to maneuvers - so a general can lead 4000 men and still use them in waves when attacking.

Generals

9. Make sure to state that a general can only have 1 trait at a time (except the knight thing)

10. What happens when an Iron Islander general with the Reaver trait sacks a region? Does he get 2/2? Or are the Regional and General traits mutually exclusive?

11. Siege breaker - make sure to point out that if the region in question has no garrison, the army must be 2000 men.

King

12. Half of the vassals income is too much. Why not make it 20%?

Also, the king should be an exception for the other trading rules - so he can give/receive as many resources as he likes.

Edit: Also, weren't we going to come up with some mechanism to weed out inactive players?

[Deadwood]

If a player is absent for a number of turns, his lands become infested with White Walkers, or greyscale...and becomes a death trap for any players wandering in?

If the account is also active on the boards, but not the game, ban that account from all future games.

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

On the rules.

Legacy Points

1. What happens if a player actually gets to 100 Legacy points? Does the game end? Yes

House Creation

2. On the Lord's age - shouldn't we start him at 18, not at 20-25? Just the basis- not the actual starting point for anyone.

Regional Traits

3. Why the limitation on the Reavers trait to apply to only 1 region per turn? Because if combined with other traits they could collect 5/5 or more in one turn. I could change it to twice per turn but I feel that is high as it should go. Especially considering it is a low-tier general trait.

Alliances and Trading

4. If you want to put some limits on the squires, why not also set a maximum age? So a squire can be a male character between 12 and 18.There was always age limits on squires; under a certain age almost always became fostering over squiring.

5. NATs have nothing to do with lands (unless you want to change them). They are supposed to be only for troops. You can take the definition I used from here.

Also, there was some talk about another sort of alliance agreement, one of the provisions of which would be to allow nobles to come and go from each other's castles without the need for a confirmation every time. I will put in the nobles; but I think we can modify the NAT land thing to can travel through land where friendly troops are. That way even non-allies can still maneuver through. Good point.

6. The trading rule is too strong. Just make it that one player can give another player no more than 4 units, as I suggested. This is more limiting to the small, unofficial alliances, rather than the big ones.

And anyway, how are you going to enforce the version you have? If I decide to send Leo 2/2, are you just going to tell me "he was already traded the maximum limit" thus confirming the existance of a secret trade? Not many trades are really that secret. It's painfully obvious most of the time. If we don't limit resources then there is no point in needing a King to give troops to; oh hey I can't give you 3500 men so here just take 2/3 3/1 1/3 1/0 from us. This will actually make the King mechanic function more and possibly allow us to see more than one King pop up in game. It also prevents a player in the alliance with either northern blood, a strong general or hardy just being given the bulk of either their allies income or

7. Oaths of Fealty, scenario 2 - I think this contradicts the King powers you have in another section. Good catch; I adjusted that.

Army and Combat

8. I'm not sure about the "1500 men require a general" rule. It looks random to me.

If we want to make attacking worth more to the player, let's just make it a blanket rule - if any army wants to move outside of its own regions, it needs a general to lead it. However, this shouldn't apply to maneuvers - so a general can lead 4000 men and still use them in waves when attacking. Adjustment: A force of 1500 or more requires a general to move outside of it's regions. However once outside their home regions a General can order troops to move as long as that movement is within 2 spaces of the general. This is all about there being a risk and reward when going to war.

Generals

9. Make sure to state that a general can only have 1 trait at a time (except the knight thing) Gotcha.

10. What happens when an Iron Islander general with the Reaver trait sacks a region? Does he get 2/2? Or are the Regional and General traits mutually exclusive? Yes. I say let's have them stack. Especially if we keep the limit to once per turn or twice per turn. This person has risked it and now they gain 2/2 per region sacked.

11. Siege breaker - make sure to point out that if the region in question has no garrison, the army must be 2000 men.Gotcha

King

12. Half of the vassals income is too much. Why not make it 20%? If it's 20 percent the King won't receive 2/2 from his vassals until each of them has 10 territories. Half a tax is good. That reminds me that I should put rounded down in there.

Also, the king should be an exception for the other trading rules - so he can give/receive as many resources as he likes. Fair point.

Edit: Also, weren't we going to come up with some mechanism to weed out inactive players? I like Primus's idea a little haha but I don't think any other player should be punished or inactivity.. I might just put in; If a player is inactive for 3 or more turns((12 days)) then they forfeit their lands. Any nobles will return to their home player. I someone is be sieging or attacking the land in between then they can finish the siege. This just means they run the risk that the player comes back after maybe 1-2 turns inactivity. Turn 2 Player 1 goes inactive-On the beginning of Turn 4 their land is deleted.. Or we can have a land grab; on Turn 4 their troops and castles disappear and whoever gets there first can claim those regions without conquering/colonizing.

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

Last complaints from me.

On the map.

1. Do something about the two rivers connected to the God's Eye. It just hurts my brain seeing them end in nothingness. :D

If you want to keep them as an impassable border, just redirect the Blackwater rush to the south of Blackwater Hill.

2. I change my mind about the third passage. The Westerlands should have a third door - and since Crakehall can't serve (because the Reach is closed) I now see the logic in opening another one at Baneford.

3. I know it's just a name issue, but it also hurts my brain - change the places of Deep Denn and Brent Brook please. And correct the border there so that only Deep Denn can be accessible from Stoney Sept (seal the border with Riverspring) - if that looks like too powerfull a position, just open the border with Pinkmaiden as well.

4. The Tooth - Deep - Hills debate. Please, change those three regions in such a way that the Golden Tooth is the only one accessible from the Riverlands and the other two are hidden behind it.

5. And lastly - I like all the starting sets, except Chiltern. For some reason I think it will be a very fucked up position to start at - because it controls the way into the Vale. I have no idea how this can be fixed, but can you spare an hour or so thinking about it?

I'll read through the rules and post my thoughts on them in the next few hours.

Also, I'll start PMing all potential players.

The Chilltern set is exactly like the Nightsong set I had last game. They don't control the south river crossing nor the sea ways((which there are now two of due to Greywater watch opening up. Four if you count the Darry and Maidenpool port ability as another crossing spot.

http://i.imgur.com/80OaIAX.jpg

One 1 on 1 border

One 1 on 2 border((westerlands))

One 1 on 2 border((riverlands))

As balanced as it is going to get.

[TheCrannogDweller]

The Chilltern set is exactly like the Nightsong set I had last game. They don't control the south river crossing nor the sea ways((which there are now two of due to Greywater watch opening up. Four if you count the Darry and Maidenpool port ability as another crossing spot.

http://i.imgur.com/80OaIAX.jpg

One 1 on 1 border

One 1 on 2 border((westerlands))

One 1 on 2 border((riverlands))

As balanced as it is going to get.

Except now you have Stoney Sept as the door to the Riverlands instead of Deep Denn being the gate to the West.

[Et Cetera the Mouse]

For inactive players, I'd say if you're gone for 2 turns without giving notice to the host, they'll send you a reminder, and if you're gone for 3, your lands revert to unclaimed and your income and any family not married/squiring are wiped. If you come back and present a valid reason for your disappearance, the players can argue about what to do.

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

For inactive players, I'd say if you're gone for 2 turns without giving notice to the host, they'll send you a reminder, and if you're gone for 3, your lands revert to unclaimed and your income and any family not married/squiring are wiped. If you come back and present a valid reason for your disappearance, the players can argue about what to do.

Basically what I proposed. So I think we should go with that.

[Deadwood]

There is a difference though between people whose account is inactive, and those who simply stop playing.

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

Both will apply;

Within 3 turns of inactivity nobles will be returned to their respective players.

Another play attacking within that period may continue the attack.

After that 3 turns all that players, troops, savings and castles will disappear. Unless another player has captured the capital or land up to that point.

[Et Cetera the Mouse]

Nobles as in "Active player's nobles staying with inactive player" or "the family of the inactive player that has been married off"?

[Lord Syv Aldlark]

Active players nobles with inactive player.

This is the one instance will divorce will be allowed as a game mechanic. That way no one gets stuck with being married to a non-players characters unless they wish to be.

[Et Cetera the Mouse]

I know this was a problem for me last game- what would happen to active player's characters who are squiring/married to inactive players? Would they automatically be sent to their capital when the inactive user's stuff is wiped? Also, could you choose to keep an inactive player's character (for Lightbringer or something of the sort).

[Nox Irradiata]

He said after 3 turns of inactivity, the nobles who are held by an inactive player will be returned to where they came from. And that marriages to the inactive player would have an option to be dissolved, so that characters won't be stuck.

[Et Cetera the Mouse]

Ok, thanks. That seems fair.