BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Arrakis on April 12, 2012, 10:26:40 AM
-
Title:
Add more council positions for military leaders - everyone goes up one spot
Summary:
Marshals become Generals and Generals answer to the King. Generals become a part of the council and are appointed/elected. Every army that exists is lead by a General, and has a second in command (Marshal or w/e name that fits).
Details:
The idea would be to get rid of the "armies are lead by Marshals", and would be replaced by "armies are lead by Generals". Also, we toss the mentality "all Marshals answer to the General" and replace it with "all Generals answer to the King".
Something like this:
Current General becomes the King (not suggesting that the general overthrows the King or something, just that the authority that generals currently have are transferred to the king)
Current Marshal --> General
Current Vice Marshal --> Second in command of every specific army
Simultaneously, the Generals would be added to the council of the realm, which would mean more repute and recognition for this incredibly difficult position to play, but more responsibilities too, as they could be protested out if they don't do their part right.
Benefits:
Adds to the realism I think. From what I know the armies were usually under the direct authority of the King, and although the King could delegate his authority to someone else (the Senate or his most trusted military advisor) what we usually get in BM is the attitude that puts Generals above the Kings in this field. While it is usually understood that the King can overrule his Generals orders, I have often seen mentality that goes like "Zip it, my King! As long as I am the General, I am in charge of the armies!". Under this sort of system it would be perfectly clear to anyone that King is in charge of his armies, and Generals are assigned to lead their specific army, but it would still be possible for the King to delegate his authority over the entire armies should he want that.
Adds more fun and perception of self importance to more players. With this feature we would have more council positions which would mean more players/characters will feel greater accomplishment. More players would now have a greater say in deciding as their titles would be much more grand (no more poor little Marshal running things from the shadows - he would now be a General of the third of the King's armies playing master of puppets).
System like this would really allow the military part of the game to be played like Tom envisioned it: as in, you would have a military figure (the King) who'd be able to give directions (the most basic ones) to his Generals and say "conquer that city for me!", and the General would go and do it. Currently, the guy that does that is the General which makes his position rather easy to play and very few actually play Generals like that. They usually go around and micromanage.
I don't think it should be too hard to make these changes 'cause they are more cosmetic rather than fundamental.
Possible Exploits:
Don't know what to do with the "current Generals" if this is accepted. They will probably always lose as the best deal they can get is to lead an army and that's it. They can't go up in the hierarchy, but only remain where they are and have less power as they lose their ability to order all armies.
The sponsors position is also questionable as if there is a council position for the above mentioned feature then the sponsors probably don't get to choose who leads their armies. But hey, it's not like the sponsors really care who leads their armies right now anyway.
While this would give even more power to the ruler (which may not be a good thing, although it would be realistic) it may also free up some space for diplomats to fit into their role. The ruler would not be able to do diplomacy *and* direct the armies due to the time constraints, so he would have to give more power to others. If you play a warlike King he would want to have his hands on the military, and would then delegate his diplomacy authorities more to the diplomats (i've rarely seen diplomats being that important as they should). If you play a King who is a perfect politician then you choose your favorite General to lead all your armies and sit back to enjoy seeing him devour your enemies.
-
I like it, a lot. In fact, it increases the importance of the sponsor. Suddenly the sponsor can decide how one of the generals is chosen. He could appoint a person of his choice, or opt for a referendum.
-
Not a fan of a council position where the ruler has NO say whatsoever.
If this is adopted, the ruler should have the option to censure the generals, basically remove them from the Ruling Council message list. Make the censure public, so if people disagree, they can protest the ruler.
Frankly, I'd like to see more types of punishments in general rather than fines/banishments/exiles. But that's another story. :)
-
So, basically, you're saying "remove the general" ?
-
If by General you mean the guy that sets "high strategy goals", whatever that means and where no one plays like that, anywhere in the game, then yes, I really think he is obsolete.
If by General you mean the guy that goes around and makes things happen, which is how pretty much everybody plays a General, then no, I am saying add several more.
-
... eh.. basically.. the king is the general.
-
I believe nothing forbids the Ruler to also hold the position of general, right? It seems that is what I would do if I wished to organize a realm like Arrakis proposes (which looks like a perfectly fine way to organize a realm).
I can also see how a ruler would specifically not want to have direct control of the army. A priest ruler of a theocracy, for example, would really want a general to set strategy.
-
The ruler wouldn't have direct control of the army, but he would have authority over his General(s). You will say, yeah, he already has that, but that is poorly defined and not really enforced - the only time a ruler would now override his Generals orders is if they were suicidal - and that is a big IF, too.
This feature is really focused on changing, or better to say defining more clearly the role of a ruler and a General(s). The current system is usually misunderstood and is not being played as it should be. There was a huge topic few weeks back where it was clear that rarely anyone plays the role of a General according to the guidance provided on the BM Wiki.
So, your priest ruler of your theocracy wouldn't say to his Generals when to refit, what settings to use when attacking and stuff like that, but he would say go forth and take back our holy city for our faith.
-
The ruler wouldn't have direct control of the army, but he would have authority over his General(s). You will say, yeah, he already has that, but that is poorly defined and not really enforced - the only time a ruler would now override his Generals orders is if they were suicidal - and that is a big IF, too.
This feature is really focused on changing, or better to say defining more clearly the role of a ruler and a General(s). The current system is usually misunderstood and is not being played as it should be. There was a huge topic few weeks back where it was clear that rarely anyone plays the role of a General according to the guidance provided on the BM Wiki.
So, your priest ruler of your theocracy wouldn't say to his Generals when to refit, what settings to use when attacking and stuff like that, but he would say go forth and take back our holy city for our faith.
What I am saying is that this can be achieved if the same character is both ruler and general, which is a perfectly legit thing to do. Basically your proposal would remove a possibility, but would in fact not add any, as it is already possible to do it.
-
What I am saying is that this can be achieved if the same character is both ruler and general, which is a perfectly legit thing to do. Basically your proposal would remove a possibility, but would in fact not add any, as it is already possible to do it.
Having a character as both ruler and general would limit the amount of people in council positions, rather then expand the number of people in council.
-
Having a character as both ruler and general would limit the amount of people in council positions, rather then expand the number of people in council.
Most realms where I had a leadership position formed their own ruling council anyway, I rarely see the game-mechanic council being used.
But, yes, I don't oppose the idea of renaming marshal as generals and including them in the council. I just think that, if that is the case, an overseer position over all generals (War Minister?) should be retained, and not forcibly merged with the ruler.
-
Most realms where I had a leadership position formed their own ruling council anyway, I rarely see the game-mechanic council being used.
But, yes, I don't oppose the idea of renaming marshal as generals and including them in the council. I just think that, if that is the case, an overseer position over all generals (War Minister?) should be retained, and not forcibly merged with the ruler.
Wouldn't you just get the same as now then, the "war minister" would assume the role of our current general, etc.
-
But, yes, I don't oppose the idea of renaming marshal as generals and including them in the council.
So any two-bit lord with 150 gold can put themselves on the realm council? Or any random unlanded knight who just happened to at one time have sponsored an army can, too?
-
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.
-
I don't think this makes sense with the way governments work right now.
However, I do have a new government system in mind, have had for a few years now. But first, stable must be updated.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So, basically, you're saying "remove the general" ?
Pretty much.
To which I say: Then make your king the general.
Nothing prevents it.
-
I agree with Tom on this one. I quite like it.
-
It would certainly be a good alternative if the government system ever becomes more customisable in the future.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ok, as long as that's the circumstance I'm fine with it.