Talk:Alternative Quick Rules System

From ThroneWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

I've listed the TOC here with the intent of marking it up as a sort of roadmap for changes, to get us started. When discussion on a section gets too cluttered here, we can move that section of discussion to the discussion tab for that page. rw I think it would be helpful if we flagged our comments in some way such as the initials I put above. rw Here's a scratch page with a bunch of notes I extracted out of the various emails: Lords Lite: Rules Scratch Area It's a horrible mess. I recommend staying away until the info has been massaged at least one more time...

  1. minor edits to acknowledge that this is a branch of the basic rules. rw
  1. Definitely some changes here, but probably should wait until we see what ends up dropped. rw
  1. Changed to specify only Open Nations, referring to possible introduction of others in the future. rw
  1. Suggested so far is keeping them, dropping Pre-Columbian and/or Seafaring, or making everyone Civilized. My inclination is to drop Pre-C and S, but to keep B and N. I'm not sure the first two add much. The GM can certainly introduce things like lack of horses as a special effect, at his discretion. Losing S is only a major hinderance to nations in Oceania. This doesn't strike me as terribly significant. There is much to potentially gain in terms of table simplification by losing these two. If we are going to retain terrain, I think it becomes very advantageous to keep B and N. Comments? rw
  2. Suggest we retain only Civilized and Barbarian as, if you will, the two distinctive "primary" classes. Pre-Columbian and Nomadic are pretty much variations on the Barbarian theme as Seafarer is on Civilized. Lornecolmar 07:28, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  3. For the core rules I accept. However, I would want to keep Nomadic and Seafaring as optional rather than complete removal. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. It has been proposed to drop these. I'm leaving them for now. Let's see what practical impact is left by retaining the distinction after other rules are reduced.rw
  2. At first glance I'd tend towards dropping Society Base altogether. However, I'll need to get a clearer understanding of the game consequences of this before pushing it. Lornecolmar 07:28, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  3. I agree this should be investigated before we remove it. How would you suggest doing this? Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. minor edits here to drop reference to 'national projects'. Just specifies that sNFP can't be used to build troops. Discussion of changing to Slave through the use of sNFP looks pertinent but need tidying after we are done with the National Projects section.
  2. I don't like the idea of having to track sNFP, how much sNFP vs NFP

were used to build PWB, or tracking them being used more than once for city/Megalithic. IF a good rule mechanism can be found.

Here are a few ideas:

a) The idea above: "Just specifies that sNFP can't be used to build troops."

 Pro: Least amount of change for existing players
 Con: Not much simplification

b) For actions that result in the acquirement of slaves, take 50% of sNFP that would have been generated and add that number to the nations NFP. Every time this occurs there is a small % chance (based on the number NFP gained) that the nation would convert from a non-slave economy to a slave economy.

 Pro: No tracking of sNFP at all
 Con: It seems unrealistic that a nation could perform a single action and acquire a few slave, then just because of that they change to a slave economy

c) Keep a total of all the NFP acquired through slavery, through out the existence of the nation. Every turn there is a chance based on the percentage of NFP from slavery to current NFP of the nation.

 Pro: More realistic. Only minor number tracking
 Con: Uncertainly how this would actually play out in the game. Rule might need some tweaking over time.  

d) Remove Economic Base completely from game. However, I feel there should be some form of repercussion for using slavery - generally it is not as viable as other economies.

e) Remove Economic Base completely from game. The the percentage of NFP from slavery to current NFP of the nation is used to determine a percentage deduction in tax revenue.

3. My preference is #c or e. mfuller
4. Suggest dropping the Slavery type altogether (along with sNFP). IMO the disadvantages this presents (separate sNFP accounting, monitoring use of sNFP, the unattractive consequences of the Slavery type on other national attributes) outweigh the advantages. Lornecolmar 07:28, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
5. If people are willing to give up the Economic attribute, then I say let's go with that. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)

  1. It has been proposed to drop these. I'm leaving them for now. Let's see what practical impact is left by retaining the distinction after other rules are reduced.rw
  2. Per my comments on Society types this element may also be dropped subject to clarification of the game consequences. Lornecolmar 07:38, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  3. Agreed Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. I'm proprosing a major rewrite here. Remove BL/TL/Infra requirements to change government type and instead let BL/TL drive the change in government type. Start as Tribal or Feudal monarchy. Reach BL of 2 and go to central monarchy or stick with feudal/tribal, BL of 5, stick with CM or switch to Imperial if you like, BL 7 stay with imperial or switch to const. monarchy. Etc. That cuts out all this charting business in this section, maybe removes a couple of types from the board, and -later- cuts out all the change of government rules. The tradeoff for players might be - try to make the switch early and get a more sophisticated gov with some risk or civil war, or let it happen later on its own for free. Or something. Thoughts? rw
  2. MHoly: I like getting rid of Projects and focusing on the Benchmarks idea. When a player first hits the benchmark, they can choose to switch at the risk of a Dynastic Failure. Maybe allow a window, or a cycle of retries. Can make the switch up to 50 years after the benchmark -or- every 50 years you get another chance to make a switch -or- have a limitation of only one government switch per 50 years. Benchmarks should include BL and/or INFRA; Tech Level; and possibly Society/Economic Types (if these are kept). There can also be retrograde benchmarks to indicate when a government type collapses that the player can try to avoid. Dynastic Failure would be the most common. Though other ways of losing BL/INFRA and Tech Level can occur.
  3. Propose Government limited to four types - Feudal, Centralized and Constitutional Monarchies and Imperial. Since most LOTE games start and are conducted in the Medieval milieu I believe these would be the appropraite types to accommodated. Furthermore, even in standard LOTE games, the other government types are rarely seen. Lornecolmar 07:38, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  4. Agreed Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  5. Is Anarchy needed for events that might collapse a government? Mike Fuller 18:19, 25 Dec 2007 (EST)
  6. In addition, a restricted range of types is still compatible with the interesting Benchmark ideas above. Lornecolmar 07:38, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  7. I guess I would have to see how this would work. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. No other changed to these until we decide what we want to do with Government type. rw
  1. This should be dropped. Lornecolmar 07:38, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Sure Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Keep, but needs a rewrite that is dependent on what other changes occur.
  1. Keep for color or ditch entirely? I'm inclined to leave it, but take out all formal rules for the impact of language.
  2. MHoly: If left for color, will take hard-coding to eliminate the modifiers. If we ditch, one language entry of (Blank) in the validation table will cover everything. I say ditch.
  3. Agree with the proposal to ditch. Lornecolmar 07:38, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  4. Agree Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. keep rw
  1. Don't think we need this. "You can build at any friendly city which can trace a land connection to your capital." Comments?
  2. I like this simplification. Propose adoption. Lornecolmar 07:38, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  3. Agree Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Keep rw
  1. Why doesn't this just say, "ESI is approximately equal to your Raw Revenue and is reported in the newsfax by rank rather than raw value? rw
  1. Lots of work here. I want to get rid of most of these modifier. rw
  2. Extreme Trade simplification: Remove all aspects of trade except of income: trade revenue = NMV * Base Revenue each turn. However, I like the idea of players establishing trade routes - but if establishing trade routes does not add anything to the flavor of the game, then lets use this extreme simplification. Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  3. If extreme trade simplification is used remove Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  4. However, I like the idea of creating trade routes Mike Fuller|Mike Fuller]] 14:51, 27 Dec 2007 (EST)
  5. My question is if using HOT, exactly which rules would be removed from the standard rules? Mike Fuller 14:51, 27 Dec 2007 (EST)
  6. After much debating in my head, if you feel the HOT system simplifies trade enough then lets use HOT rather than the Extreme Simplification Mike Fuller 16:43, 3 Jan 2008 (EST)
  1. keep rw
  1. Remove reference to MSP Mike Fuller 12:11, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove reference to MSP Mike Fuller 12:11, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Mostly minor rewrites for these sections.
  2. If extreme trade simplification is used remove Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. keep rw
  1. keep rw
  1. Possible minor rewrite depending on what is done with census. I suggest the census is on all the time and the player automatically gets the higher of basic nfp and census nfp.
  1. Redundant if we adopt the "build in any F city" proposal. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. If we could drop this, I believe the game would benefit. However, the whole Religion piece needs to be revisited in light of its various in-game effects. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Religion played a significant role during the middle ages. So if this rule is removed, there should still some thing that simulates that fact, such as the Max control level. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  3. You might be right. The only benefit to having a high religious strength is for religious operations. So if we remove them, the everyone will want a low religious strength. So the only effect is Maximum Region Status by Religion table. So is really worth it? Mike Fuller 11:34, 12 Jan 2008 (EST)
  1. With Primacies and orders being removed. If we keep any of the religious actions that a nation can perform, I suggest we move them to leader actions. Then remove Religious Operations Capacity and Religious Operations Bonus and Religious Support. Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove reference to MSP Mike Fuller 12:11, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Propose restricting the range of Leader types to King (ruler), Heir (immediate designated successor) and Lieutenants (everyone else). With our desire to simplify without compromising the core of the game, I believe we could drop Allied leaders. We can certainly dispense with Bishops, Spies etc. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. works for me Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. There's been broad supportive comment on the list about reducing the number of distinct control levels. For my own part I'd suggest cutting the standard game's 14 grades to a more modest 6 - Uncontrolled / Tributary / Allied / Friendly / Pacified / Homeland. IMO these encompass sufficient variety to maintain the flavour of incrementally stronger control while reducing the complexity and finer-tuning inherent in the standard approach. Importantly, in the Lite system context, I'd propose the Allied control level equates to Economic Ally in the standard game. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I agree. However, changing the number of levels affects the diplomacy rules in the GM book. The adjustment is based a ladder of the levels. That's why I proposed the lesser number of levels with different stages (same number of "ladder rungs" for the diplomacy rules.) So either we change those rules slightly or for the GM he keeps tracks of the various stages, but as far as the players there are only 6 levels. Ex Tributary may have multiple stages for the diplomacy ladder, but no matter how high the stage is within the Tributary level, the player just sees Tributary. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. I need to check whether Industrial Capacity has any related hard coding in the Stats program. If not, I think we should forego the whole IC concept. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. A significant reduction in the variety of City Types is recommended. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree I suggested just 3. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove Banks from the Lite version. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Sure. Mike Fuller 21:31, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove in line with the adoption of either the HOT process or an equally simple substitute process. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. See Extreme Trade Simplification above Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 12:20, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 12:11, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. See Extreme Trade Simplification above Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Potential the reduce number of distinct route types consequent to reviewing the greater Trade model? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Propose this is dropped in its entirety. The Lite version will not accommodate either Primacies or Merchant Houses which renders this section redundant. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 22:03, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Keep troop build aspects? For trade aspects See Extreme Trade Simplification above Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. See Extreme Trade Simplification above Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Drop? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Replace with Crossing a Ferry Arrow costs 2 AP to cross for armies, unless opposed by an enemy fleet, which would block the crossing. Mike Fuller 22:57, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. See Extreme Trade Simplification above Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. If adopted as the preferred Trade system in Lite, this should replace most of the above sections dealing with trade elements. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Drop consequent to the proposed change in mobile unit build locations? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop if we lose the Allied distinction. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. This would probably work for me Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop entire section and all other references to Mercenaries. In respect of the desire to simplify matters to give a "cleaner" gaming experience, it would be beneficial to restrict players to using only National troops bult by themselves. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Fine with me. I would have mercenaries as a house rule. Mike Fuller 22:03, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop. In game terms the Port Areas are conventionally treated as 0GPv cities. To my mind this is a mechanical distinction that would add little to the Lite game. Players would retain the ability to access Sea Zones via Port Cities. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Fine with me Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Lorne, earlier you stated the following: "I'm in two minds about dropping Postal Roads. They are an extremely useful in-game tool to address a critical issue - national integrity." Could you expand upon this? Mike Fuller 12:56, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Review all aspects of National Transformation in light of decisions re the Gov, Culture, Economy etc types and further consideration of the Benchmarks idea above. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Drop consequent to removing the Language element. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove Princes. Retain Heirs only. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I'm fine with this. However, I would still keep track of royal family members. They would just be Lieutenants. I think royal intrigue can be great for adding flavor to the game. Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  3. Wanting to keep royal family info & after looking at how to write this change, I'm having second thoughts about removing Princes.Mike Fuller 16:24, 26 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove Allied leader type (in line with proposal re Allied region status in the Lite environment). Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 22:03, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Is there a need to retain this as a fallback for any GM recording requirements or allow some additional colour for players? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I don't know Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Reconsider the standard process. There have been ideas proposed re standardising activities to facilitate easier player and GM management. N.B. It is advisable that any process adopted is recognisably similar to the standard game process to allow for easy player transition in this vital area. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. As above. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agreed if we stick the version 5 impulse chart Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. As it currently stands, the main game provides Leaders with no less than 48 distinct action options. I suggest this is drastically pared down to a more modest 21 available actions identified below. I believe these retain what I discern are the "core" actions while maintaining a sufficiently comprehensive range of actions for players to undertake. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I agree reducing the number of actions would be a good thing. However, I have one caveat. Other suggestions for reducing leader actions or espionage actions were merging similar actions into a single action with different options. To me this logical if and only if the GM rules for the different actions are the same or similar (different modifiers, a few if-else clauses, etc). To me it makes no sense to combine the actions with a list of options, just to make the GM look a totally different set of rules based on an option. What's wrong with keeping those two (or more) actions separate? Mike Fuller 10:16, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. This will be heavily influenced by the results of the discussions relating to the Wall Point / Fortress / Field Fort distinction. In advance of that though, personally I'd be in favour of a single Siege action to replace the current Active Siege / Passive Siege distinctions. To my mind, we're more concerned with the consequences of the action rather than the means adopted to realise it. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. True we are concerned about the consequences of the action. However, how many casualties an army suffers in order to try to take the city is also a consequence. Mike Fuller 22:07, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Any attacks from a Sea Zone into a Land Region can be addressed via appropriate combat modifiers. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 22:03, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove in light of losing the Pacified Tributary control status. Replaced with a single Attack order resulting in a Pacified status. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 22:03, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. See note above re single Attack order. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. See note above re single Attack order. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove. Redundant in light of restricted Nation types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 22:03, 21 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Lose this? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I don't know Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Damage to city subsequent to occupation can be incorporated within the Sack City order. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove as standalone and incorporate as a subsidiary element of Colonize Region. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. What would the resulting GM rule be? Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove if the always-on Census is adopted. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Replace the three separate Defend (Prepared / Hasty / Directed) orders with a single Defend. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I would like to keep the three distinctions as optional Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  3. On second thought, I concur, let's combine them. Mike Fuller 13:28, 27 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove - see note under Defend, prepared above. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove - see note under Defend, prepared above. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove. Redundant in light of restricted Nation Types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove if the broader Slavery element is ditched. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove and have this abstracted within the Secret Movement order? Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. I don't know Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove consequent to restricted Nation types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Could be removed if a default rule covering this is adopted e.g. HC is automatically tested when a married Royal is stationery for a given period of time. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Can xStat be setup to automatically perform this when royal couple are stationary? If not, would it be more work for the GM to remember to perform this action whenever the couple are together? I don't know, I'm just asking. Mike Fuller 13:421, 27 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove and subsume this into any Incite Revolt intel action (which would also be covered by the above Espionage action). Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Optional Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. If Extreme Trade Simplification used Remove Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Reconsider once status of Religion within the Lite model is resolved. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove. See note above under Active Siege. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. See my note under Active Siege. Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. As in version 6 rules combine with with Upgrade Troops and replace with Modify Troops Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Could be incorporated into the Scorched Earth order. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Reconsider once status of Religion within the Lite model is resolved. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. See also note under Burn City above. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. See also comments under Regional Genocide above. Alternately, a more readily understood order might be adopted via a comprehensive Destroy region order (which would encompass both Scorched Earth and Genocide). Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Possibly remove in light of the adoption of the HOT trade model that removes MSP management from player control. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. See Extreme Trade Simplification above Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove if the Slavery element is dropped from the Lite version. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. See notes under Re-equip troops Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. MHoly: Added Scratch Notes to Expanded Section
  1. Will need review consequent to whether the Religion element is included in Lite. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. As I said before religion should be part of the rules in some faction. Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove consequent to restrict Nation types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove consequent to restrict Nation types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. IMO Banking represents a more detailed aspect of the economic process more appropriate to the "advanced" standard game. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove if the Allied control status is ditched. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove consequent to (potentially) restricted Culture types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  1. Remove consequent to (potentially) restricted Culture types. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove? Simpler all round that only one Nation has a status in a region at any one time? Lornecolmar
  2. I would to see this removed for simplification purposes. Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  • REMOVED Section 11 - Secret Empires
  • REMOVED Section 12 - Calculating Size and Inter-nation Trade
  1. Why was Calculating Size removed? Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Agree Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
  1. Remove if Religion is dropped from Lite. Lornecolmar 09:59, 21 Dec 2007 (MST)
  2. Again back to my religion being part of the game. I would like to keep. Mike Fuller 11:17, 22 Dec 2007 (EST)
Personal tools