A new set of thoughts on how to bring Midgard back

[Davin]

I don't like the idea of giving the Imperials any significant advantage over any of the other factions.  That includes preserves/forts and significant walls/towers.  I think that cutting them off from their homeland (possibly by destroying or near-destroying it) seems like a good idea to me.  I think they should have a few damaged cities just like everyone else, of similar size to other factional cities, and make them work to rebuild just like everyone else.

Rome had a huge population, back several hundred years before Midgard's time frame, but it's urban center was small (16 square miles and 11 miles of walls) and I think most of its population was spread over the countryside.  But IIRC, it's conquered territories were just the native population with a few actual Romans left to govern them.  I can't see how that looks like massive preserves even way back when they were conquering everyone they could reach.

If we have to pick up from AFTER the last games ran, then we'll need to invent an interim history to help explain this situation.  Otherwise if we go back to the asteroid strike (or have yet another one?) we have a ready-made excuse for substantial changes in their situation and behavior.

I think the original game reasons for Imperials with massive cities and massive defenses must have been to explain why everyone didn't just band together and stomp them out.  If they aren't as devastating to the continent, then I don't see any need for them to have massive defenses and advantages over all the other factions to defend against the rest of the world, either.  (That's from a game designer's point of view rather than a "historical" viewpoint.)

If we make the Imperials less of a conquer-or-kill everyone faction and make them play much like other factions just trying to take over as much territory as they can politically, then that would be a fairer setting.  They can still have a history of being conquerors but they can have mellowed due to circumstances beyond their control and a need to "get along" to a certain extent with those around them.  They can still be militarily organized and promote that organization and have good training/troops to that end.  In addition, I like the idea of them spreading their version of a "standard law" as much as possible and providing such services to people within their areas.  This organization and abilities keeps them as a major military-based player in the game, much as they were, but hopefully without as much extreme craziness to go with it.

I really like the idea of making the game fair and balanced for everyone - that's how a game ought to be, IMO.  Who can explain to me why the Imperials should have major built-in advantages over everyone else?

[DreamWeaver]

Hey I would rather put them on equal footing with everyone else, but many seem to want to continue the unfairness of the past. I am only trying to tone back or down that and make it much more fair to deal with

[Davin]

Ok, so maybe we need someone else (such as Steve or his companions) to chime in here and convince us that they SHOULD have big advantages over everyone else.  Or perhaps, if they get some advantages then they should also get counter-balancing disadvantages to keep things more even?

[DreamWeaver]

Ah maybe Steve or Oliver can chime in!!! There are others too that could also comment publcally too like Brian the former IMPERIAL #1 or maybe Matt too.

[FutureSojourner]

Ah maybe Steve or Oliver can chime in!!! There are others too that could also comment publcally too like Brian the former IMPERIAL #1 or maybe Matt too.

I agree with reducing the power of the Imperials and making them more cooperative.  I think it would be fun to play this new Imperial faction as a city leader -- striving for a cosmopolitan city with a multitude of factional offices and trying to create a city where everyone would want to live.  The old Imperials were too insular and I like the proposed changes.  I like the idea of preserves, but maybe make the idea of building Imperial Preserves a new factional goal - to build unseigable cities that dominate a region.

[FutureSojourner]

Penn:

You and I are in agreement with regard to the Imperials.  I do like the idea of scaled-down Imperial Preserves (or as I mentioned previously) having them as a factional goal.  But if they have preserves make them smaller and no forts or cities.  Preserves would also be good starting points for new players -- regardless of their faction -- since the Imperials are "sort of" neutral (with perhaps some exceptions).  

Oliver

[Dark Shadows]

Ok, I have asked in the past how does a faction within the game get factional resources? Now factional resources are defined as; Retainers, Crowns, and Influence. It was explained that it is the number of factional offices and the population within a declare factional cities that gets each faction it's income of these factional resources each turn. It would seem to me that the Imperials are being given a huge benefit. If the population in a declared cities is part of what gets a faction it's resources, then starting them with a population that is  80x times greater is grossly unfair. These Preserves seem to be very out of the scope of unfair. I think we should see them done away with, as well as the forts as well too. If as you have stated every other faction is only going to start with 1-2 declared cities, and a few scattered factional offices in different cities across Midgard then why do the Imperials get more than that. I have also been told that the Imperials are an entitled Big Box faction. If that is true then give them 4 cities and just give them that. Also as it has been proposed to give them 4.0 Walls and 5.0 Towers, and nothing more. When other cities will almost across the board have no defenses, that is being nice. I still don't feel it's fair, I guess it is what has always been given to that faction in the past. 

If we redo the history from the point of the asteroid strike and just take out the Preserves and Forts, and simply state they had cities it should be more than fair to let them start with the (4) cities and with some defenses of  4.0 walls and 5.0 towers. Also as it has been pointed out make them have to build up the cities buildings. Maybe they get 2-4 f each and these cities are between 20,000 to 25,000 annexed populations.  Anything greater would be grossly unfair and excessive. 

I would once again like to see the following defined by the GM for each faction:

1) What factions will be in play for players at the game start?

2) How many cities will each faction have at the game start? 

3) How many factional offices or temples will each faction have at the game start?

Everyone talks about 'transparency' these days, so I think this should be called out and made public for all to see.

You have called out that the Imperials had a grossly unfair advantage, then let us end it and just define it.  It would seem that the collective active players here that are willing to post here have already spoken. The GM and the collective seem to want the end of the Entitled Big Box factional view. So let's end this and move on.

[Davin]

I agree with reducing the power of the Imperials and making them more cooperative.  I think it would be fun to play this new Imperial faction as a city leader -- striving for a cosmopolitan city with a multitude of factional offices and trying to create a city where everyone would want to live.  The old Imperials were too insular and I like the proposed changes.  I like the idea of preserves, but maybe make the idea of building Imperial Preserves a new factional goal - to build unseigable cities that dominate a region.

I think that letting the Imperials build up to Preserves is as great idea, but any other faction should also be able to do that if they wanted to in order to satisfy their own goals.  I've been thinking about having several nomenclatures of "city" determined simply by population size (rather than specific features), and something general like a Preserve could be added to that -- perhaps we could call it a Metropolis (like old Rome)?

[Davin]

I would once again like to see the following defined by the GM for each faction:

1) What factions will be in play for players at the game start?

2) How many cities will each faction have at the game start? 

3) How many factional offices or temples will each faction have at the game start?

I haven't settled on fixed numbers for these (and may not until we're about to begin), that's why I'm asking for input and discussion.  But I would like to see them spread out as evenly as is feasible.  I'm also thinking we may not start with any offices/temples except a few in their initially factional-declared cities.

I think we've already decided to have all the previous factions available (even if nobody signs up for them anytime soon).  But I would like to restrict the "evil" factions to NPCs-only, at least until we have a good reason to play in them, unless someone can come up with a good reason against that now.

[Davin]

You have called out that the Imperials had a grossly unfair advantage, then let us end it and just define it.  It would seem that the collective active players here that are willing to post here have already spoken. The GM and the collective seem to want the end of the Entitled Big Box factional view. So let's end this and move on.

It's only been a couple of days since we specifically asked others for their input.  They may only visit here once every week or two.  Let's give them some more time to express their views and arguments and see if they can convince us.