Add more council positions for military leaders - everyone goes up one spot

[Anaris]

No. I never proposed for sponsors to be able to do that. The sponsors should only be able to sponsor the army and that's it. It is enough that their names are mentioned in every battle. Leaders of armies get chosen differently, either through election or appointment, depending on the government system.

Sponsors appoint the marshals of their armies, at will and with the ability to replace one at any time. Changing that would mean taking away most of the sponsor's power.

[fodder]

what is council but a pre-defined message group... with specific status solely due to its position generated by the game as default?

ie... all can be done already, aside from the fact that you can't customise marshal title.

ps.. sponsor as ruler also does that.

basically, get a realm where ruler is general and duke and lord and sole sponsor of all armies... then make a special message group called generals.

[Arrakis]

I can fight flying elephants that way too, if I want to, but people won't really take me seriously - at least the majority won't. People act differently when a game tells them something and when someone - even the King - makes that up.

Nevermind, the thread has been killed so shut it down please.

[Tom]

Before you do that, do keep this idea in mind, I quite like it. It just doesn't work well with the current government system, but it's definitely something to be considered in a reworking of the government system.

[pcw27]

I think this is a bad idea. The power of the King is established by the government system and additional fluff the players can create. Iashalur actually has a constitution on the wiki to establish the powers of the realm council. It's unnecessary to change the way armies are structured just because some realms didn't make it clear what powers the king held.

[Chenier]

So, basically, you're saying "remove the general" ?

Pretty much.

To which I say: Then make your king the general.

Nothing prevents it.

[Gustav Kuriga]

I agree with Tom on this one. I quite like it.

[De-Legro]

It would certainly be a good alternative if the government system ever becomes more customisable in the future.

[Arrakis]

I think this is a bad idea. The power of the King is established by the government system and additional fluff the players can create. Iashalur actually has a constitution on the wiki to establish the powers of the realm council. It's unnecessary to change the way armies are structured just because some realms didn't make it clear what powers the king held.

Yes, I have noticed Turin directing the military quite straight-forward in Iashalur, which is commendable I suppose, but in the same time it adds to the confusion as your General is quite obsolete and is more of a ornament than really a leader, running around not knowing really what to do - he didn't issue any sort of orders in at leas two months - that says something.

Anyway, as has been said before, this thread is not really about King gaining more power, but it is about defining the roles of both rulers and generals much more accurately than it is now. Just because you think you've done *well* to set up a proper structure in your realm doesn't mean the idea is bad, as you really ought to keep *all* players in mind, not just yourself.

I am glad Tom (and the majority here) likes the idea. I understand it is not doable at the moment but I am happy it will be considered once and if the gov. gets enhanced.

[pcw27]

Yes, I have noticed Turin directing the military quite straight-forward in Iashalur, which is commendable I suppose, but in the same time it adds to the confusion as your General is quite obsolete and is more of a ornament than really a leader, running around not knowing really what to do - he didn't issue any sort of orders in at leas two months - that says something.

Anyway, as has been said before, this thread is not really about King gaining more power, but it is about defining the roles of both rulers and generals much more accurately than it is now. Just because you think you've done *well* to set up a proper structure in your realm doesn't mean the idea is bad, as you really ought to keep *all* players in mind, not just yourself.

I am glad Tom (and the majority here) likes the idea. I understand it is not doable at the moment but I am happy it will be considered once and if the gov. gets enhanced.

And that's because I play Turin as a warrior king who's actively involved in military actions. I think you've underestimated Jonas' involvement in issuing orders. If it really has been two months it's probably because the player is not that available right now.

Some realms might want to have separation of Civilian and Military government (which has been seen in many cultures historically). This is up to the realms to decide, it shouldn't be determined by a game mechanic that automatically makes the King the Commander in Chief of a realm's military.

If anything were to be changed here I'd suggest a system that lets you pick and choose the powers of each government office. Maybe have a set number of indeterminate "government officials" from there you can give powers such as military authority, authority over commerce, the power to arrest and ban nobles, ect. Then the powers could be shared and thus requiring votes of all people granted the powers. Then instead of selecting "tyranny" a single player possesses all of these powers, instead of "democracy" any action requires a vote from the nobility, and "republic" allows a regular election of a set number of individuals to posses those powers entirely.

I would say if the mechanics can't support this sort of complexity in government then we should just leave government systems to player created rules which can be obeyed or broken at their own risk. There are already systems in place by which someone abusing their power (or presuming to have powers they don't) can be punished.

[Chenier]

What's so difficult with just giving the general title to the ruler?

Game mechanics don't prevent one from holding both titles at the same time...

[pcw27]

Exactly this change would take away player choices, not create new ones. What if a realm wants to have a General in charge of all armed forces? Under the proposed system they can't. What reason is there for it other then to apease players of rulers who want more military power? If they want more power they should seize it in game and be prepared to face the consequences.

[De-Legro]

Exactly this change would take away player choices, not create new ones. What if a realm wants to have a General in charge of all armed forces? Under the proposed system they can't. What reason is there for it other then to apease players of rulers who want more military power? If they want more power they should seize it in game and be prepared to face the consequences.

Which is why if implemented it would likely be part of a revamped government system that allows for more customisation.

[pcw27]

Ok, as long as that's the circumstance I'm fine with it.