Lord Lyman Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 That seems fair. I think most of the nobles sacrificed last game, came from inactive households. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Maybe one addition to the legacy points: Ransoming prisoners. For both sides. Makes ransoms more likely to occur and cuts down the slaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadwood Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Those poor butchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Syv Aldlark Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Hence the loss of points for losing a family member. I could even raise those specific points up. More people will be more inclined not to have their heirs dying if it means losing points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 That's an incentive for one side only. But you need a seller as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Syv Aldlark Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 A seller gets resources that's the incentive for selling a hostage.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Et Cetera the Mouse Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 So, for a final rule on armies, I vote any army 1000 or over needs a general, with no cap so long as you have enough generals. This will prevent many big armies, but little raiding parties (a must-have for any traitorous act :) ) and slow shipment of reinforcements will be possible without a general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 That sounds solid to me; going to change the gameplay a good deal though, perhaps for the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Syv Aldlark Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 2 votes yes: let the players decide this one.Also adding a provision for kings swearing fealty to other kings, a point loss for this event((not as steep as being overthrown). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Irradiata Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I think this sounds good, although I'd prefer a higher number. 1500 would be my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrannogDweller Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 Syv, here is my last attempt to fix the borders of the Westerlands. The Golden Tooth and Nunn’s Deep/Pendric hills switch places somewhat.The Golden Tooth is now accessible from two Riverlands territories (Turnbridge and Branstone) and 6 Westerlands territories.The Wyndhall group loses some of its impassable borders.Riverspring, Red Bramble, Peckledon and Payne Hall switch places a bit. Deep Denn is now accessible from two Riverlands territories (Red Bramble and Brent Brook) and 3 Westerlands territories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I think what's Leo is trying to do is to tie the regional bonuses with the lands themselves, rather than with the players. So, for example, if I'm located at Riverrun, I can pay whatever price we agree on and build a farm on any of my regions within the Riverlands (let's say Blackwood Vale).Then I decide that I want more gold production. I conquer/colonize/trade and get a territory in the Westerlands (say Pendric Hills). I build a mine at it and start getting additional production.But I decide that one territory is not enough to balance my coffers, so I go and conquer/colonize/trade a territory in the Vale (say, Gulltown). I build a port on it and I can exchange resource at a 2 for 1 rate. The key here is ownership. As long as I own territories in the Regions in which a certain bonus applies, I can make use of that bonus. So, Nox , the answer to your question is no - only the owner of a port in the Vale can make use of its trading bonus. Obviously, having those kinds of regional bonus buildings will create a cross-region land-grabbing incentive, but I'm sure that this is exactly what Leo wants. :D Edit: Also, giving automatic troops to the Iron Islanders will throw the game entirely off balance, I think. It will basically start an arms race and it will make the no-initial-armies provision completely moot.And let's simplify reaving. Instead of a separate trait/mechanic (that's how it sounds to me right now) let's just make it a Sacking bonus for the Iron Islanders'. So every time they sack a territory, they get a 1/1 bonus.This is pertinent and describes exactly what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Irradiata Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 This describes the regional buildable bonuses being tied to the land, and available to anyone owning land in the given territory. No one is disputing this, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 This describes the regional buildable bonuses being tied to the land, and available to anyone owning land in the given territory. No one is disputing this, either.Tying all the bonuses to landLike regional traits have ALWAYS been.We were all on the same page about this at one point clearly while we were discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Irradiata Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Your quoted passage describes regional buildable bonuses. We have also never had a player-wide regional traits system, so there is no always. What is it, seriously, that you're trying to achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Your quoted passage describes regional buildable bonuses. We have also never had a player-wide regional traits system, so there is no always. What is it, seriously, that you're trying to achieve?The very first sentence describes tying regional bonuses to land, that was just the example nogg used, the buildings. Obviously that also includes the others where applicable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Irradiata Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The very first sentence says "what Leo is trying to do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eorl Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The very first sentence says "what Leo is trying to do." You sir win for the day. I havn't laughed so hard in a couple days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonardo Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The very first sentence says "what Leo is trying to do."And the rest of the post and those following imply assent, and also that its a good and important idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nox Irradiata Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 The rest of the post describes buildable bonuses specifically. There is nothing implied. It uses specific examples. I still don't know what you're wanting to achieve, so I'm all done here. Going to wrangle up some groceries and try to catch a movie. Hope you enjoy what's left of your Saturday. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.