Quote:
Originally Posted by LupusFatalis
Aye: the Rule change to continue this game sounds good.
-- I like the vassal concept to drag this more toward co-op, but think it was ill posed. (i.e. the penalizing bit I dislike, I think a free trade of provinces between vassal and overlord is good, and the vassalage should be for life--so as not to allow ninja-victories). Similarly I don't think all normals should be able to be vassals, i.e. a cap of 2 vassals per overlord or something, further when your vassal dies you cannot replace him.
-- You already have my thoughts on the indie idea
-- I think the other modifications far too much.
|
That vassals can actually back out while Overlords cannot eject vassals means its actually more power for the vassal. A vassal should be able to look for a new lord if they're willing to sever their ties. They have to pay for the privilege to make it inconvenient, but that they even have the option is a power for them.
Vassals and Overlords can freely trade provinces - no limitations were laid between the interactions of allies. There's merely a restriction on attacks when a Vassal severs ties with an overlord.
I'd rather give Overlords enough Vassal slots to make some vassals early, and still have slots left for later use. Its a more interesting diplomatic game if the Overlords have more latitude to reward allies. Why do you think 2 is superior to 5?
Why do you think the other changes went to far? Its hard to respond to 'gone too far'. Why are the rules as proposed a bad idea?