Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Proposal: Immigration

Self-Killed -Larrytheturtle

Adminned at 17 Apr 2013 17:25:09 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule which is a sub-rule of “Land” called “Immigration” and give it the following text

A Noble’s Immigration Score is equal to MAX(0, MIN(K-P, U)) where K is the number of knights they have, P is the total number of Parcels they have, and U is the number of unoccupied parcels they have.

If at least one Noble has a Immigration Score greater than zero, then whenever Time is Advanced, the Noble responsible for Advancing Time must construct a list of Nobles, where each Noble appears a number of times equal to their Immigration score, and which is sorted in the same manner as the GNDT, and then role a DICEN where N is the sum of the immigration scores of all Nobles. The Noble who appears in position K on the list (where K is the result of the dice roll) has one of their Unoccupied Parcels converted to an Occupied Parcel.

Might be too fiddly to update, might be too slow, but just using knights to gain occupied parcels is weak sauce. I like the concept of a few people moving in each day and you not really having a lot of control over weather or not you get one.


RaichuKFM: she/her

16-04-2013 18:09:08 UTC

against Forgive me if I’m wrong, but is this what’s going on: You take the smaller amount of either Knights - Parcels or Unoccupied Parcels, and then take either that amount or zero, whichever is greater?
This seems over-complicated and unwieldly. I’m just gonna Propose spending one Knight to make a Parcel Occupied as a Daily Action.

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2013 20:05:51 UTC

its not overly complicated. In hindsight the P should be occupied parcels, not total but that can be changed later (someone with 9 knights and 9 unoccupied parcels should be fine but as written wouldn’t be). But like, the basic concept is you take the lower number of “free knights” and unoccupied parcels, but don’t let it be lower than zero.

Just doing “spend one knight” is mind-numbingly boring.

RaichuKFM: she/her

16-04-2013 20:10:50 UTC

Still doesn’t expend the Knights, which is my main issue with these attempted mechanics. And I don’t see how something being simple makes it boring; it’s the gameplay it will cause that is fun, not it in and of itself.


16-04-2013 20:29:42 UTC

against My main problem with this is the second paragraph. I think that it is annoying complicated, and way too luck driven. Also it’s absurd that only one Noble can turn their unoccupied parcel into an occupied one per advance of time. I would amend this rule to, every time that time is advanced, resetting each nobles # of occupied parcels to = K and then setting the remaining parcels to be unoccupied. Or something like that


16-04-2013 20:38:52 UTC

for Overall, I like the idea, but I disagree with only one noble occupying land at a time.


16-04-2013 20:39:51 UTC

Sorry - meant imperial

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2013 22:06:08 UTC

re raichu: knights a free to buy, so expending knights just adds a needless extra step and is the same as spending money. This does spend knights in a way, as the more parcels of occupied land you get the more knights you need to get more.

re kikar: I agree that its kinda complicated, but the luck driven is kinda by design. And its not absurd thematically—the idea is that immigrants are coming in and occupying the land and a slow steady rate. More land means more likely they’ll choose you, but won’t speed up the immigration flow. You could immigrate more than one per round, sure, but that just increases the work done by the guy advancing time.

RaichuKFM: she/her

16-04-2013 22:31:03 UTC

Clucky, Earl of Oxford, Baron of Berkhampstead, did you just transgress the rules of proper address between men such as myself or kikar, Baron of Monmouth, Baron Veralum? Does a phrase such as “re Noble” constitute an address, or merely a citing? Opinions?


17-04-2013 00:01:21 UTC

against I do like what this is trying to do, but it sounds quite fiddly and slow to update. I assume the list would be in a post announcing that Time is Advancing? If so, one would need to make sure that the die roll happens after the list is posted/edited.

Clucky: he/him

17-04-2013 01:15:14 UTC

It was “regarding this post made by this person”. There was no addressing done, just referencing. You cannot address someone unless you are speaking directly to them.


17-04-2013 07:05:04 UTC

against I’d prefer this dynasty to remain dice-free, to contrast with the previous one.


17-04-2013 16:34:59 UTC


Clucky: he/him

17-04-2013 19:29:22 UTC

against in favor of the other ideas