Okay one of the things I enjoyed about Gal Civ 2 was the option to pick which party you want your race/faction to be geared towards. These parties in a way helped define your faction's play style. War Party for the warmongers out there and Technologist Party for the research junkies.
But considering that Elemental will have, YOU, the channeler be the absolute, unquestioned, ruler of your kingdom. Naturally, a democracy will probably not work in your favor. Why go through all the bureacracy just to invade your hated neighbors when you could just cut through all of the red tape and leave the middle man alone to twiddle his thumbs. In short, I personally feel that the party system won't work, setting wise anyway.
Historically, it was quite common for monarchs to have a group of trusted advisers, a Royal Council if you will, to help guide the empire to glory. What I'm suggesting is allowing we the players to choose from a list of unique individuals who give bonuses towards either military, social (taxes, city maintenance, people happiness and loyalty), commerce, foreign affairs (diplomacy and espionage), research, magic, or, maybe, heroes and beast. These characters would form up as your royal council members and help guide your priorities and make your faction all the more unique.
Balance Issues can be resolved by these methods. 1.) limited number of seats available to fill for the player. Thus forcing us to choose what we think is most important. 2.) Have a VERY large selection of canidates to choose. 3.) limit the potency of the canidates bonuses.
So.... What do you guys think?
You would not want to use your master thief from the royal council because IF the people ever discovered that the stolen money was approved by the channeller and lead by his master thief the people would have a very high chance of revolting. The 3rd party merchants guild would allow it to be very difficult to link the channeller to such an action.
Think about what a group of powerful rich citizens would do if they discovered the president of the USA actually was the individual who approved to have thieves break into their homes, bind them into chairs and steal their valuables. Those citizens at the very least would leave to another country... and worst seek revenge and possible assassination.
On the same note... if this thief would steal from his very own people what's to stop him from stealing from other members on the council or even the very channeller himself. The master thief could not even be trusted to attend the meetings at the high council because he has the slimy characteristics to sell the information on the black market. Everyone on the high council must be someone who can be trusted.
The plausible-deniability point makes sense, but what I am saying is if this guy is loyal to the CHANNELER above all else (and he would have to be), he could be trusted to work within the kingdom.
Yes the channeller should have the option of having a master thief on the royal council. I strongly feel this master thief should be used for stealing from independents and other opponents. My whole argument has been to disagree with chopping off fingers to feed the body... hence stealing from ones own kingdom when other sources exist.
You think that, and I think that, but the channeler might be a biiiiit less responsible. I think players should have the option to be evil if need be.
The player can be just as evil using high taxes to bring the same amount of gold. Citizens are going to be more likely to stay in a realm of high taxes compared to a realm of moderate taxes with very bad crime because losing family heirlooms and priceless antiques will hurt more than a sack of gold.
So just stick with having taxes.
I wouldn't say that. People are actually going to be less likely to leave an area of high crime that you can protect against and hire private security and wards to protect themselves than stay somehwere with an obscenely high tax rate that you can do nothing about.
What?? NO. Buying private security and wards costs money.... much less expensive to move to another territory where there is no crime. You don't see LOTS of rich moving into the Bronx because of its location and cheap rent and then buying lots of security and wards for protection. The rich move to upstate new york where the cost of homes are more expensive, but clearly it's a safer neighborhood! People move away from crime especially since personal antiques and priceless heirlooms cannot be replaced.
Whatever. I'm just saying the option should be open.
I don't see why this can't be an option for more evil rulers. It's no way to make steady income (or else you WILL drive your citizens away), but it's not a bad idea for a quick boost of income now and then. Not to mention it could prove to be a uniting factor in some cases.
Think about it: a mysterious crime spree sweeps through a city. The sovereign acts quickly to contain the situation and stomp out crime. Not only did you make some cash ripping off your citizens, but you look like a hero doing it.
Finally another machiavellian in our cluster.
On a side note, let's stop the Master Thief discussion before it REALLY get's out of hand. I agree with ya NTjedi about how tricky it can be having someone with a questionable background working for you and you can trust (but mutual fear can keep you two from ratting one another out (Meaning he knows your secrets and you know his and betrayal would be like a Mexican standoff, niether side will pull the trigger)). But in an oxymoron sort of way, having a master thief and/or a thieves guild in control of the crime inside a town has a few advantages, that is if no one finds out and if they do just have your Master of assassins to remove the rabble rousers. Sure it's evil, but its a matter of view points (Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) was considered evil in his time, and still is, but now he's a national hero in Romania). The thing is, if your going to do something shady having contengency plans and means to prevent self incrimination is part of the game.
Of course, being a monarch you could always use "divine right" to shut the plebs up. Being a channeler, from my thinking, means that people would treat you kind of like a deity and if you're a true follower of the dark side you would make people think you were (stargate anyone?). People'll backstab one another over anything, but ask them to turn traitor to their god?....
Okay with that out what kind of canidates would you folks like to see in the roster?
I like a lot of what you said, and the "Mexican Standoff" gave me an idea: the loyalty of your councilmembers would not be assumed. Instead, you would have a probability that they would betray you. The more capable the member, the more likely the betrayal. You could keep them in line through military/police power, spies, bribes, and possible other stuff like blackmail.
How about a head of your faction's Merchant's Guild to help you get more out of caravan traffic?
Perhaps including the heads of other sorts of guilds might be able to give your council/faction more identity also, e.g. a Master Armorer if you're a warlike faction or a Master Mason if you are more of a builder than a fighter.
Surely if you're playing one or another of the Fallen, or 'evil', races then your choice of Royal Council should be slightly different. This is where the choice of Master Thief becomes more practical. Different mores and social practices would result in possibly subtle (or not so subtle) differences in who you get to choose for your Royal Council. I can't really see a shining light civilisation of angels and do-gooders having the option of choosing theives and assassins as members of their Council. On the other hand, evil (or just not-so-nice) races similarly shouldn't be able to choose representatives from 'lawful-good' leaning religions (just as an illustration, not sure how religion fits in as i haven't read much of the backstory), etc.
More standard positions such as Chancellor, Sergeant-at-arms, Horsemaster/Beastmaster or Master Merchant (Gaffer Gamgee for increased farming output?) would be available to all and sundry.
Moreover, you might only access certain other positions depending on how your civ/Channeller allocates its resources; Ruinic Priest (increases power of local spells cast by Channeller; achieved after Channeller casts x amount of local spells). Stone mason/sapper (once civ has spent x amount of resource on developing fortifications).
Each Channeller has a set amount of positions on his council, say 6. Easy at early levels as low-level channellers would only be able to hire/recruit a few, but after a while the options become important as the amount of councillors outnumber seats at the table and each change of councillor becomes increasingly expensive.
Good idea Delad, but i'm not sure how it would excute in practice.
In theory, if a player chooses all ethically good council members then his/her own moral alignment as the channeler would be shifted closer to that way as well and, thus, make it more difficult for the player to switch their faction's moral alignment. But this would naturally be neutralized by the player choosing a more balanced group (1/2 good, 1/2 evil) for:
good = positive, evil = negative or 1+negative 1= 0
And how will neutrally aligned member would come into play? The simplist solution I can think of is to make Neutrals = zero, this way Neutrals don't muck it up. Ultimately though is the problem that we don't even know if there is going an ethics system in Elemental and how it will work. If there is and it makes the game even better, great. if not oh well.
example list two:
Prince Humperdink: makes the people less weary in prolonged wars.
Miracle Max: increases luck (Warning: do not MM in the same room with PH for there will be bloodshed).
The Bounty Hunter: increases prize value from quests.
The Smuggler: decreases the amount of taxation on your goods in foreign ports/cities.
The Gentleman Pirate: Makes pirates and brigands less likely to attack you or you gain $ from navy and land battle victories.
The Highwayman: Makes roads in your territory profitable as in a source of income.
Grain Merchant: Boosts farm income and/or production.
Town Watch Commander: Boosts security (lowers probability of espionage)
Master Troubador: makes your people more content and less likely to riot and/or revolt.
Chief Surgeon: increases survivability of troops and health of the civilians.
NTJedi raised a good point about the additional complexity--and implicitly "non-fun"--aspects of disloyal advisors. Perhaps tumultuous internal politics should be a game option, simliar to the various trading options in GalCiv2 today.
Things like Rebellions, Disloyal Followers, etc. could all be optional by game.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
