|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 19, 2020 23:36:59 GMT
As coltredhead pointed out, this is vague at the moment. But before I draw up a list, it's worth discussing what people think. Should this be restrictive (most government/court positions) or really only the top level positions? (It's less of a penalty now because of the new detached service rules).
|
|
|
|
Post by Renald De La Azur on Dec 19, 2020 23:48:15 GMT
My view would only be the top levels but happy either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Dec 20, 2020 1:24:38 GMT
I would prefer top levels
|
|
|
|
Post by Monique Adelina De'Ath on Dec 20, 2020 15:00:24 GMT
Personally I am happy with either, so content to support the majority view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 21, 2020 19:40:28 GMT
I'm thinking what might be best here is to only have the very top ministers and maybe some top court positions as full time (so not even Intendents).
But to restrict spending of influence on non military matters to people in Paris.
I think that makes sense thematically.
The more important thing there though is trying to balance things so that a) military careers are viable and have enough potential rewards to justify the danger but b) don't overshadow non military PCs entirely.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Dec 21, 2020 21:15:03 GMT
Given the "hourglass" nature of of the military career (unlimited below Captain, 28(ish) Majors, 14 Colonels, unlimited General officers) the loss of military position due to an appointment requires the player to decide on maintaining on military rank or pursuing appointment, creating an impediment that other occupations (church, artist, merchants) don't face. Churchmen and Artists would be able to fill a civil appointment and continue to advance their careers. Merchants could still run their shops. Military PCs have to put their advancement on hold. If it is a game balance mechanism find but it seems a bit unfair otherwise.
It makes sense to me that roles appointed by the King would be full-time, i.e. the King wants them close at hand such that they can't perform other duties. Lower positions, intendents and the such, would be less likely to be needed full time. Their are multiple intendents for war (and other ministers) and it is reasonable that not all of them are needed all the time. Perhaps going to the front or on expedition would be an influence roll much like being excused from private or subaltern duties. Or an intendent might be require to go on expedition as the King's representative.
I am guessing that expeditions were created to give non-military PCs a chance at front-like risks and rewards but it feels riskier than the front and less rewarding. Would you be open to a reevaluation of that portion of the system?
Enough of my whinging. Option 1B with full-time positions limited to those appointed by the King would be satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 21, 2020 22:39:17 GMT
Given the "hourglass" nature of of the military career (unlimited below Captain, 28(ish) Majors, 14 Colonels, unlimited General officers) the loss of military position due to an appointment requires the player to decide on maintaining on military rank or pursuing appointment, creating an impediment that other occupations (church, artist, merchants) don't face. Churchmen and Artists would be able to fill a civil appointment and continue to advance their careers. Merchants could still run their shops. Military PCs have to put their advancement on hold. If it is a game balance mechanism find but it seems a bit unfair otherwise. There is a game balance element here. From a overall view (which obviously is easier for me than the rest of you!) things are still pretty weighted in the favour of characters pursuing a military career. They don't necessarily have a harder career path than the other careers. Clergy are in a pyramid structure so likely have it worse. Advocates/Doctors/Actors/Musicians do have a linear structure but at the top levels the requirements get very stringent indeed. The only career that probably does have an easier time is merchants who rise in importance as their Social Level does and even they have to buy every new shop individually. So yeah, having seen them all in play career advancement is probably one of the most balanced parts of the game. I don't want to nerf military characters too much. Campaign and the military is a vital part of the game and the Front adds some uncertainty and drama. But at the moment I do think military characters have the best of it. They have one downside, but that's the chance of death so it's a biggie. But their main advantages are: The highest chance of getting titles. By a long shot. We've had one character so far who got titled without going to the front and that was Helen, so she married one. Decent chance of loot. Not a dead cert, obviously. But a better chance of getting a windfall then any other career. An entire set of appointments exclusively for military characters. The only other career that has this is Priests who come with a lot more restrictions. Medals. Not only are these a source of permanent SP, but for the higher ones they're a very rare case (the only other is ranks and appointments) that pays you for having permanent SP. The latter could work. I'm not wedding to using full time appointments as the specific solution to this, I just think the non military careers could do with having another advantage or two! Definitely up for looking at that portion again if people have ideas. I don't think it should be identical to front levels. The general goal is to try and have all the careers asymmetrical but equally fun to play, even though that makes it more difficult to design than standarisation would! |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 22, 2020 0:30:51 GMT
I'd even change it a little (though it may add a little complexity too): All King appointed ministers are full time. There are 5 intendants: - 2 Intendants of war: those may go freely to war, but may also be sent to war at any moment. If they are so sent, they will serve with the Commander in the specific front (be it a Frontier Commander or other General). In game terms they will be treated as an aide
- 2 Intendants of finances: those can freely go to expeditions, but may also be sent to one
- 1 intendant of Foreign Affairs: may be sent to Embassies. may assist to all Embassies balls.
This represents the intendants are sent as "minister representatives" sometimes to such missions, and can freely act in their field. I tried to give in all cases an advantage and a possible obligation. Not sure what to do with the Secretaries of state, as I don't see any such field to act on... About influences, I would not limit to specific fields, as others are not despite being clearly focused on nature (e.g. an adjutant using his appointment influence on a priest, or, added with others, on a minister). |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 22, 2020 1:08:06 GMT
About influences, I would not limit to specific fields, as others are not despite being clearly focused on nature (e.g. an adjutant using his appointment influence on a priest, or, added with others, on a minister). Just in case it was unclear, my suggestion wasn't a general limitation, just specifically if people are at the front. (The main reason for the military exception would just be to avoid people not being able to ask their commanders do certain tactics!) |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 25, 2021 8:56:09 GMT
Another question:
what happens if someone is in a regiment that is sent to the front when he's filling a full time appointment?
Has he to choose among resigning his military post o losing the appointmet, or he's considered "on leave"?
e.g.; should RA of JBO achieve governorships and the Dragoon guards volunteer for the front, should they have to resign their military ranks or Governorships or they would be "in leave", so keeping both?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 25, 2021 9:24:10 GMT
We have a new rule for that!
Detached Duty
19.26 If (and only if) a character in a regiment holds a full time appointment he may choose to go
on detached duty to avoid losing the position by being sent on campaign. If he does so, all benefits
of the rank are suspended, but he still counts as that rank for the purposes of applying to
appointments. He is removed from the regimental position (freeing it up for another character).
However, when he returns, he will do so at the highest level vacancy up to his original rank. If this
is a lower vacancy then his original rank (due to it having been filled) he will get the SP and pay of
his original rank, although not the command position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Renald De La Azur on Apr 30, 2021 11:35:01 GMT
Having seen some of the things that have changed for Characters over the last few months I think this needs re looking at.
at the moment we have the cps/ head of the royal guard at the front acting as a general officer but both these posts should stop him from being at the front unless he is in disgrace,
some of the characters have gone on detached duties because it makes sense that the position dictates that they be in Paris but the head of the royal Guard is allowed to leave the king?
same could be said of the head of the cardinals Guard but i don't think he is pushing for the front.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Apr 30, 2021 12:36:43 GMT
This is a complicated one and needs full discussion before I make a decision.
The minor positions (CPS, Secretarys of State etc.) could be made full time easily enough.
Guards are a more intricate one.
It is not currently possible for Brevet B-Gs to get promoted to full staff without a BG position, the vast majority of which are Command positions.
I wouldn't be against waiving that requirement for Guards Regiments (who are a special case anyway, as they have a way of promotion without being at the front).
This is made more odd by the fact Hulluame chooses to turn down all promotions to full command so he can keep his RFG position! So that makes this more complex; in normal circumstances he'd have been promoted out of the RFG months ago.
There's several ways that could be handled in a rules change, in broad order of harshness:
1. Keep as is.
2. Anyone who turns down a staff position will not be promoted again for 12 months since they were breveted.
3. Those who turn down a staff position lose their brevet at the end of the position that needs it.
4. Anyone who turns down a staff position will no longer be considered for appointments requiring that brevet rank.
As I said, I'm not against changing any of this up, but it's big enough to need more player contribution I think.
My general principle is that any rules change that majorly affects players needs some notice, made moreso by the fact only Hulluame would be affected here. (Technically Arnold but he's happy with his Governor position and that's already full time).
So if these rules are changed:
CPS won't be made a full time position until Feb when it comes up for renewal.
Any changes to either RFG or command positions won't be implemented until Hulluame no longer has a BG position. (From March, as soon as he fails to get a BG appointment he instantly loses brevet).
If this is changed Hulluame will be allowed to retroactively accept all his promotions making him, on my calculations, a full Marshal de Champ.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Apr 30, 2021 14:15:42 GMT
That puts me in a difficult position, as, as Louis points, it directly affects Huillaume's interests...
Fact is that one of the reasons to apply for CPS was that it was not a full time appointment, as his economical situation nearly forces him to go war 8and anything is better than frontiers). Otherwise, he would have appointed for State Intendent, that also gives him this freedom.
And while I see Renald's point, enemies of the state are also at war...
About the Guards Commander, I'd see strange a military Rank (albeit temproary) that forbids to go to war, and its position is moslty formal, even if only to gain more military experience.
As said, huillaume does not intend to go for higher Rnaks ,as he does not want to leave the Guards, at least not yet. In a game where promotions could not be refused (as Britain EG!) he would probalbly stop at Colonel for a while, not taking posts where he could be promoted further. And see that refusing promotions means really sacrificiying any gain, as in this case they are not exchanged by MiD...
To resume, I'd prefer to keep it as it is, though the idea of avoiding further promotions or a time if one is declined has some logic, but I must admit its a heavily bisaed vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Renald De La Azur on Apr 30, 2021 16:26:44 GMT
the head of the guards would be generally keep close to the king unless they was something between them in which case the Guard commander would likely become the ex guard commander fairly quickly, combat experience was not a requirement of the position.
I had thought that the Secretary's of State was a full time position already, the CPS and director of the lottery less so but they was some pressure that Renald not stay with his regiment when moved to a less hostile area but still at the front as the director of the lottery.
keep it the way it is.
|
|
