Where do we do this in the new estates system? I don't see it anywhere.
Quote from: Chénier on September 26, 2011, 05:59:47 PM
Where do we do this in the new estates system? I don't see it anywhere.
It's still missing.
lol this is going to be a big problem...
Quote from: Zakilevo on September 26, 2011, 11:46:17 PM
lol this is going to be a big problem...
it won't be missing for long
Quote from: Tom on September 26, 2011, 11:52:36 PM
it won't be missing for long
Good to hear. Got some new nobles, some of them rather new to the game, and I'd hate to keep them out of the army.
Fatal error: Call to a member function getArmy() on a non-object in /var/battlemaster/live/testing/ArmyAssignment.php on line 36
appeared: http://battlemaster.org/testing/ArmyAssignment.php
should work now
Yes it works as far as I could test.
Aye tis working thank ye
As Ruler of my Realm I am unable to assign myself to an army X.x
Maybe I'm blinded but I'm not seeing the option.
Quote from: Phellan on September 28, 2011, 07:01:46 PM
As Ruler of my Realm I am unable to assign myself to an army X.x
Maybe I'm blinded but I'm not seeing the option.
Nope, you're right; I missed that.
Quote from: Anaris on September 28, 2011, 07:02:35 PM
Nope, you're right; I missed that.
Well, actually - you shouln't be able to if you're not also the marshal. As ruler, you'd not serve under anyone, right?
This is a tricky bit of hierarchy we'll still have to sort out.
Quote from: Tom on September 28, 2011, 07:06:37 PM
Well, actually - you shouldn't be able to if you're not also the marshal. As ruler, you'd not serve under anyone, right?
This is a tricky bit of hierarchy we'll still have to sort out.
The ruler is always free to ignore the marshal. You won't go seeing the judge fine the ruler if he doesn't obey the marshal's commands.
Being part of an army shouldn't be considered being subjugated to its marshal. The Marshal should be considered more of a coordinator, since he lacks the ability to punish anyone himself. The rest of the feudal hierarchy should be used to know who is subjugated to who.
Being part of the army is just so much simpler. For gameplay's sake, I would request that rulers not be given a restriction for this. Rulers have many duties as it is, we shouldn't ask them to figure out military affairs themselves as well, on top of the diplomacy they must do.
I have to agree with Chenier. It would be very annoying for the ruler to have to be the Marshal in order to march with an army.
If you were to completely follow the "can't serve under someone lower than you" ideal, then you wouldn't bother allowing the sponsor to assign a marshal. You'd just auto-assign the highest ranked noble in the army as the Marshal.
IMO for game play purposes, we should allow anyone to be in any army.
yes, ruler would be deprived of much interesting communication that comes within some army.
It would be funny, however, that ruler has some special status within the army, visible to everyone, and that he can even affect some army stats when participating in battles. That should apply to general as well, and I believe lot of background could be found - there are so many battles where sheer presence of ruler (or general) affected soldier's morale (similar to banner concept).
that would also force lazy rulers to move their asses to battlefield at least in critical battles, and gives much food for rp...
don't rulers, if present, by definition lead the army whilst on the field? if they don't, they simply shouldn't be there?
i would suggest rulers and generals simply just get included in all army channels. (though that doesn't bode well for a rebel army in planning..... tricky to resolve?) seeing as that would be the main thing about armies, knowing where to go.
just add some bonus on top if present
Marshal X takes command of his army A
General Y oversees all armies of realm B
Ruler Y can be seen in the field of battle (or some such)
perhaps by default the general/ruler gets high cohesion?
Quote from: Chénier on September 28, 2011, 07:12:12 PM
The ruler is always free to ignore the marshal. You won't go seeing the judge fine the ruler if he doesn't obey the marshal's commands.
You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight. And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal
does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.
Quote
Being part of an army shouldn't be considered being subjugated to its marshal.
Err, what???
It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.
QuoteFor gameplay's sake, I would request that rulers not be given a restriction for this. Rulers have many duties as it is, we shouldn't ask them to figure out military affairs themselves as well, on top of the diplomacy they must do.
He can always, you know, not be in any army.
Quote from: Indirik on September 28, 2011, 07:15:51 PM
If you were to completely follow the "can't serve under someone lower than you" ideal, then you wouldn't bother allowing the sponsor to assign a marshal. You'd just auto-assign the highest ranked noble in the army as the Marshal.
That's a good idea, but doesn't work because the army members can be from seperate parts of the hierarchy. Plus there can be several equally-high ranked nobles.
Quote from: fodder on September 28, 2011, 07:40:51 PM
i would suggest rulers and generals simply just get included in all army channels.
Over my dead body. That's micro-management at its worst.
Quote from: Tom on September 28, 2011, 07:44:54 PM
You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight. And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.
Err, what???
It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.
He can always, you know, not be in any army.
Except no one actually sees Rulers as subject to Marshals, whereas Rulers as Knights
were seen as subject to their lords. Yeah, the Marshal says where to stand...But the Ruler can remove himself from the army whenever he wants, too. Cutting Rulers off from armies unless they are the Marshal is going to be a major problem. Ruling is a time-consuming enough job, Marshaling on top of that would be painful, and not being in an army removes you from a lot of the battle interactions.
Quote from: Indirik on September 28, 2011, 07:15:51 PM
I have to agree with Chenier. It would be very annoying for the ruler to have to be the Marshal in order to march with an army.
If you were to completely follow the "can't serve under someone lower than you" ideal, then you wouldn't bother allowing the sponsor to assign a marshal. You'd just auto-assign the highest ranked noble in the army as the Marshal.
IMO for game play purposes, we should allow anyone to be in any army.
I agree here.
Though, in my case it's moot since I am the Marshal.
Quote from: Tom on September 28, 2011, 07:46:33 PMThat's a good idea, but doesn't work because the army members can be from seperate parts of the hierarchy. Plus there can be several equally-high ranked nobles.
A duke can:
1) Create an army.
2) Assign himself to it.
3) Assign his knight to it.
4) Assign his knight as Marshal.
And thus place himself under the authority of his own vassal. How does that differ from the case of the ruler being in an army?
While I agree that we should hold to the hierarchy whenever possible, there are times when it simply doesn't work for the players.
Alternatively add him to a special position in the Army, when he joins one. Simply add him a title over the Marshal, and voi-la.
Surely it's only a case of language and emphasis that needs to be dealt with here? Make it so that a Ruler 'attaches' themselves to an army. When they do, have an army-wide auto message saying what a great honour it is that the ruler wishes to campaign alongside the Holy Host of Keplerstan or what have you. Bring a little pomp into it and make it mean something. Really emphasise the fact that the Ruler occupies another planet compared to your average noble. All of a sudden instead of being one among many, everyone wants the prestige of having the Ruler campaigning alongside their army.
Quote from: Revan on September 28, 2011, 08:15:49 PM
Surely it's only a case of language and emphasis that needs to be dealt with here? Make it so that a Ruler 'attaches' themselves to an army. When they do, have an army-wide auto message saying what a great honour it is that the ruler wishes to campaign alongside the Holy Host of Keplerstan or what have you. Bring a little pomp into it and make it mean something. Really emphasise the fact that the Ruler occupies another planet compared to your average noble. All of a sudden instead of being one among many, everyone wants the prestige of having the Ruler campaigning alongside their army.
something like that, yes.
Quote from: Tom on September 28, 2011, 07:44:54 PM
You could say the same for rulers having an estate in a region of some lowly knight.
I don't undestand. By defenition, a knight is one without the capacity to hand out estates. Else he'd be a lord.
And rulers do have to live somewhere... And that somewhere quite often was not the kingdom's biggest city, it was often some small town/castle in the middle of farmlands. I wouldn't see why they shouldn't be able to take up an estate in any region, as long as you make them tax-exempt to make it clear that they aren't subjugated to anyone.
Quote from: Tom on September 28, 2011, 07:44:54 PM
And yet it won't happen, because there are also game-mechanics that equal "obeying". For example, combat settings. The marshal does tell the ruler where on the battlefield to stand.
Err, what???
It doesn't get much more subjugated than being subject to military commands by someone.
In medieval times, from what I gathered, nobles would sometimes come to the battlefield with their men, and then judge whether or not the felt like participating in said battles would not. They could come, and then say "screw this, we aren't being offered enough to fight here" and turn back. You didn't give an oath of fealty and loyalty to that marshal, only to (perhaps) the person who gave him the responsibility. The marshal coordinates the nobles, and his authority only comes from the fact that someone higher up is backing up his instructions. "Marshal" doesn't figure in the feudal hierarchy for a reason. Medieval armies are nothing like modern armies. Nobles could get away with a lot of things that officers today could never dream of doing.
While unit formations are indeed a sign of subjugation, this could be solved by giving the ruler the ability to check a box "follow/don't follow marshal formations". It would be foolish to think that whenever a king was present on the battlefield, he would always decide on how everyone would deploy. I won't pull a random percentage out of my ass, but I'm convinced that some kings were more than happy to follow the suggestions of a trusted military leader. Not ever ruler is born to be a military leader. And some of them recognize this, and would rather maximize their odds of success by delegating the task to someone they trust to do better than they would. Being at the top doesn't mean you won't ever listen to anyone other than yourself.
Quote from: Tom on September 28, 2011, 07:44:54 PM
He can always, you know, not be in any army.
In some cases, it wouldn't matter. In others, it would just suck. Why force the ruler out of the armies? They always have been a part of the armies. And a lot of players play this game for the war aspect. Forcing the rulers out would not be fun for many of them. Many are already courtiers, but they shouldn't be forced to become one if they don't want to.
If you meant "they could continue fighting with the army without technically being part of it", then what's the point? It's just creating a big headache for some people with no reward whatsoever. It is already quite obvious to everyone that the ruler is at the top and owes nothing to nobody. Forcing rulers out of armies, or forcing them to be their own marshals, would be promoting a vision of medieval armies that I don't see as being correct and adding unnecessary restrictions to the gameplay of rulers. With no gain.
And what next? Are dukes also not going to be part of armies, because that marshal is a mere lord and therefore inferior? And lords too, if the marshal is a mere knight, and therefore inferior? May as well have nobody in the army. It's a slippery slope, because it's not any more valid for rulers than for dukes and lords, imo, as all of them appoint themselves to the army as they like and have the power to change armies or found one themselves if they wish.
Quote from: JPierreD on September 28, 2011, 08:01:30 PM
Alternatively add him to a special position in the Army, when he joins one. Simply add him a title over the Marshal, and voi-la.
We already have that. It's called "Ruler", or "King", "Hetman", "Prime Minister", or whatever other variation. As I and Bedwyr has said, nobody actually thinks the marshal is superior to the ruler he supposedly "commands". When I was a marshal, and had instructions for the ruler, I would label it as a request, not an order. If he didn't follow it, I didn't bitch about it. And if I had, I would have been the one ridiculed, not him. There is absolutely no need to add a synonym to "ruler" in their titles. Some people (myself included) already have long enough titles as it is.
Quote from: Chénier on September 28, 2011, 08:57:05 PM
And rulers do have to live somewhere... And that somewhere quite often was not the kingdom's biggest city, it was often some small town/castle in the middle of farmlands. I wouldn't see why they shouldn't be able to take up an estate in any region, as long as you make them tax-exempt to make it clear that they aren't subjugated to anyone.
This is actually a very interesting suggestion. To give the King the ability to take for himself any vacant estate, completely lord tax free, which cannot be resized by the lord. Though it would create some conflict between the given lord and the king (not that such is necessarily bad), it would solve the King/Knight dichotomy without forcing him to be also a Lord and a Duke. It would also require him to be kicked out of the estate if he loses/gives up the crown.
Quote from: Chénier on September 28, 2011, 08:57:05 PM
And what next? Are dukes also not going to be part of armies, because that marshal is a mere lord and therefore inferior? And lords too, if the marshal is a mere knight, and therefore inferior? May as well have nobody in the army. It's a slippery slope, because it's not any more valid for rulers than for dukes and lords, imo, as all of them appoint themselves to the army as they like and have the power to change armies or found one themselves if they wish.
Simply give a similar message to the suggested for the King to any Duke or Lord that joins the army, and when displaying its members make a clear separation between Knight members (sent by others to serve) and Lord/Duke/King members (voluntarily participating).
Quote from: JPierreD on September 28, 2011, 10:18:08 PM
This is actually a very interesting suggestion. To give the King the ability to take for himself any vacant estate, completely lord tax free, which cannot be resized by the lord. Though it would create some conflict between the given lord and the king (not that such is necessarily bad), it would solve the King/Knight dichotomy without forcing him to be also a Lord and a Duke. It would also require him to be kicked out of the estate if he loses/gives up the crown.
I don't see the need to have the king kicked out of his estates when he loses the crown, as long as he loses his tax immunity. And indeed, you'd need it for it to be shrinkable by the ruler himself, with the lord able to enlarge it if he wants.
What are the new estate changes going to change about capitals, again? I seem to recall a lot of "we aren't sure yet". Will capitals be able to be in townlands now? If so, it would make sense if there was a restriction stating that the ruler can only have an estate in the capital of the realm. The king's center of activities wasn't always in huge cities, as I said, but his center of activity is by definition the kingdom's capital. The possibility of having a capital in a town would be historically plausible, and it would give the ruler a few more options to move the capital to where he comes from, just like it was historically for multiple new kings (probably when dynasties changed).
Quote from: JPierreD on September 28, 2011, 10:18:08 PMSimply give a similar message to the suggested for the King to any Duke or Lord that joins the army, and when displaying its members make a clear separation between Knight members (sent by others to serve) and Lord/Duke/King members (voluntarily participating).
There already is. Instead of having the message "X was sent by his liege to serve in your army", you get "X has assigned himself to your army". It's already clear that he does it of his own will. And people know this. I don't see why we should try anything harsher.
Quote from: Chénier on September 29, 2011, 01:05:41 AM
I don't see the need to have the king kicked out of his estates when he loses the crown, as long as he loses his tax immunity. And indeed, you'd need it for it to be shrinkable by the ruler himself, with the lord able to enlarge it if he wants.
Following the idea, a ruler could be appointed as lord of a region, making it an Imperial Region (yes, bringing the concept back) whose taxes go fully into Realm Share, not incurring in the penalties as Imperial Regions ruled by non-king lords.
Quote from: JPierreD on September 29, 2011, 03:23:37 AM
Following the idea, a ruler could be appointed as lord of a region, making it an Imperial Region (yes, bringing the concept back) whose taxes go fully into Realm Share, not incurring in the penalties as Imperial Regions ruled by non-king lords.
If a ruler's region is imperial, though, that would prevent him from also being a duke at the same time. A simple tax exemption would not have this (considerable) restriction.
Quote from: JPierreD on September 29, 2011, 03:23:37 AM
Following the idea, a ruler could be appointed as lord of a region, making it an Imperial Region (yes, bringing the concept back) whose taxes go fully into Realm Share, not incurring in the penalties as Imperial Regions ruled by non-king lords.
Rejected. Getting rid of imperial regions was an explicit design goal. You need to re-read the wiki page, which explains that one purpose of the new system is to create one simple system that fits all, without all the exceptions and special cases that have caused us so much headaches in the past.
Quote from: Chénier on September 29, 2011, 01:05:41 AM
I don't see the need to have the king kicked out of his estates when he loses the crown, as long as he loses his tax immunity
Negative. He
will lose his estate and/or region unless he's also the duke. Again, read the wiki page. The purpose of the system is to
not have all the special cases. And I won't budge from that.
Quote from: JPierreD on September 29, 2011, 03:23:37 AM
Following the idea, a ruler could be appointed as lord of a region, making it an Imperial Region (yes, bringing the concept back) whose taxes go fully into Realm Share, not incurring in the penalties as Imperial Regions ruled by non-king lords.
If the ruler is also a Duke, he can be Lord of any region he wants and make it a one-region Duchy. That would be the equivalent of the old imperial regions.
If the ruler is not also Duke, he is a weak ruler, and should suffer accordingly.
Quote from: Tom on September 29, 2011, 08:20:26 AM
Rejected. Getting rid of imperial regions was an explicit design goal. You need to re-read the wiki page, which explains that one purpose of the new system is to create one simple system that fits all, without all the exceptions and special cases that have caused us so much headaches in the past.
Is it already implented that there won't be any new imperial regions? As Luria Nova has just taken Smokey Hills and that region is imperial.
Quote from: D`Este on September 29, 2011, 10:04:03 AM
Is it already implented that there won't be any new imperial regions? As Luria Nova has just taken Smokey Hills and that region is imperial.
Then that's a bug. In fact, it'll happen a few times, until all the code has been updated.
Quote from: Tom on September 29, 2011, 08:20:26 AMNegative. He will lose his estate and/or region unless he's also the duke. Again, read the wiki page. The purpose of the system is to not have all the special cases. And I won't budge from that.
I wasn't commenting the system as it is, but his suggestion.
I just think that making the ruler tax-immune in order to be able to get an estate anywhere is that complicated. After all, it would be creating an exception to replace an existing one, the restriction that he can't just pick up an estate anywhere, forcing him to be a hobo.
And really, why shouldn't he have an estate in someone's region, if he can have a region in someone's duchy? How is being vassal to a duke any worse? To be consistent, if we want him to be clearly above everyone without tax immunity, we'd need to force him to chose between being a hobo and a duke.
a ruler is allowed to be a lord under a different duke?
Quote from: fodder on September 29, 2011, 06:13:51 PM
a ruler is allowed to be a lord under a different duke?
Not sure how the new system handles it, but in the old one a ruler couldn't be a knight, but he could be a lord in a duchy. I don't remember hearing anything about this having changed.
Quote from: fodder on September 29, 2011, 06:13:51 PMa ruler is allowed to be a lord under a different duke?
No. A ruler can only be a ruler of a region if he is also the duke of the duchy the region is in.
Think of it this way: No one can *ever* be both above and below someone in the hierarchy. So if the ruler wants a personal estate, then the entire chain from the ruler on down to the knight level must be occupied by that ruler. If any position in between is held by someone else, then the chain is broken and it can't be done. Like this:
Good:
Ruler: Kepler
Duke: Kepler
Lord: Kepler
Estate: Kepler
This is good, because the ruler Kepler is never placed both above and below someone on the hierarchy. He's his onw boss, all the way up and down the hierarchy.
Bad:
Ruler: Kepler
Duke: Kepler
Lord: Frank
Estate: Kepler
This is bad. In order to be a Lord, Frank must have sworn an oath of fealty to Kepler. But then order to hold an estate in Frank's region, Kepler would then have to turn around and swear an oath of fealty to Frank. And that would just be silly. Kepler is Frank's Duke and Ruler. He would *never* swear an oath to place himself in Frank's service.
Quote from: Chénier on September 29, 2011, 06:19:17 PMNot sure how the new system handles it, but in the old one a ruler couldn't be a knight, but he could be a lord in a duchy. I don't remember hearing anything about this having changed.
It has indeed changed. A ruler can now only be a lord if he is also the duke. See my last post about the hierarchy chain.
that's what i thought.
Quote from: Indirik on September 29, 2011, 06:45:48 PM
It has indeed changed. A ruler can now only be a lord if he is also the duke. See my last post about the hierarchy chain.
Interesting.
How do dukeships free themselves, though? The ruler can't appoint himself to a C/T/S to then make it a duchy, needs to be done first. Can you create a duchy out of a lordless C/T/S?
Quote from: Chénier on September 29, 2011, 10:22:48 PMHow do dukeships free themselves, though?
The usual ways: Duke steps down, gets killed, leaves the island, gets banned, goes inactive, etc. I am not sure if Tom intends to code position loss based on being elected, wounded, imprisoned, etc.
QuoteThe ruler can't appoint himself to a C/T/S to then make it a duchy, needs to be done first.
Correct.
Besides, the ruler no longer appoints lords. The ruler appoints dukes. Dukes appoint lords.
QuoteCan you create a duchy out of a lordless C/T/S?
No.
It's then quite difficult for the ruler to give himself some land...
Therefore, most rulers will be... landless hobos?
Quote from: Chénier on September 29, 2011, 10:50:00 PMTherefore, most rulers will be... landless hobos?
But they won't be poor. The enforced taxation down the hierarchy will guarantee them some income.
interestingly, ruler of riombara is a knight of mio dupaki, with an estate to boot. obviously this is carried forth from before the change. question is... is there no backup/cleanup script for this? something similar quite possibly can occur after every election (will see.. election in a few days)
just imagine a lord running for election and wins. theoretically should auto lose his region. but does he in practice?
Quote from: Indirik on September 29, 2011, 10:54:38 PM
But they won't be poor. The enforced taxation down the hierarchy will guarantee them some income.
So they'l be rich homeless hobos then.
Still makes them homeless hobos.
Quote from: fodder on September 29, 2011, 11:03:21 PM
interestingly, ruler of riombara is a knight of mio dupaki, with an estate to boot. obviously this is carried forth from before the change. question is... is there no backup/cleanup script for this? something similar quite possibly can occur after every election (will see.. election in a few days)
just imagine a lord running for election and wins. theoretically should auto lose his region. but does he in practice?
Needs to be coded still. My suggestion is, if the new ruler is lord of a city/townsland/stronghold, the ruler should become duke if he isn't already--ie, a new duchy be created. Of course, this should follow the existing "ruler lose position" rules.
mind you.. historically, the king of england, as the duke of normandy or wherever was a vassal of king of france... didn't last long, obviously.
much like some of the earls of scotland had holdings in england.
Quote from: fodder on September 29, 2011, 11:50:33 PM
mind you.. historically, the king of england, as the duke of normandy or wherever was a vassal of king of france... didn't last long, obviously.
much like some of the earls of scotland had holdings in england.
The King of England was vassal of the King of France, not of a Duke or Lord of England. There is a difference.
Quote from: JPierreD on September 30, 2011, 12:07:52 AM
The King of England was vassal of the King of France, not of a Duke or Lord of England. There is a difference.
The King of England was also never a vassal of the King of France. The Duke of Normandy, Duke of Gascony, Duke of Aquitaine, Count of Nantes, and various other Lords were all vassals of the King of France. The fact that the King of England happened to be all those Lords at various times did not mean that as the King of England he was in any way a vassal of the King of France.
Battlemaster does not allow nobles to hold positions in multiple realms, thus the situation cannot occur, but it was only in France, not England, that the vassalage took place, and thus isn't analogous because at no point did the Duke of Aquitaine hold the fealty of someone he owed fealty to, because that was his highest (tied for highest) title in the realm of France.