[Discuss] unit reponsibility

[Adam]

I find this discussion very interesting, so I thought I'd give my 
perspective on matters:

I have recently became the General of a middle sized realm.  As General, 
I have been guilty of trying to micromanage many times - often I split 
the army up and try to control the given wings as they go about their 
individual goals, which I have chosen more or less unilaterally.

In my defence, I have also tried to delegate authority to my marshals, 
with mixed success.  One of the biggest requirements (even if 
unofficial) of a General is that they are extremely active, a 
requirement that is not so true of Marshals, and so at times when I try 
to delegate, it is during their busy times and is unsuccessful.

Now this in itself might not be a big deal (after all, problems with 
organization and communication are central to the times we are 
simulating), but the vast majority (or vocal minority I suppose) of the 
realms I have been in, hold the General solely accountable for both 
military success and failure.  If you are a winning general - prepare 
your speech for the next rulership opening.  Lose though, and get ready 
for the suggestions that you are barely competent for the job. 

All that said, when I give orders to the realm (line settings etc.), I 
consider them requests.  Though as a player I find it annoying as hell 
when other players do things contrary to my orders, possibly costing 
victory (I like to win battles, another reason I became General), my 
character recognizes that these other nobles have the right to do as 
they please.   In my character's mind, his ability to lead is only as 
strong as the individual nobles faith in his leadership.  I have never, 
and would never request that a noble be fined for disobeying any order 
(even looting).   I can't fathom why not following orders is even 
considered a fine-able offense, or an offense of any sort, since it is 
perfectly in character for the time.  And even though I like when 
everyone follows my general's orders to the letter, I think the game 
would be a lot more interesting if less people followed orders religiously.

I don't want to see the ability of leadership to give direction removed 
(as in Tom's initial proposal, making giving specific orders against the 
inalienable rights), since that would just make the game legislated 
chaos, and wouldn't be much fun for most, I think.

However, I would like to see two things:
a)  the removal of disciplinary functions used against those that don't 
follow orders (even against the most horrible of crimes, which threatens 
the very fabric of our simulated societies, 'just sitting in the capital 
and not following orders').  So in other words, make being a lazy, 
non-contributing noble an inalienable right.

b)  Give more reasons for nobles to be lazy and non-contributing.  Right 
now, most of a characters advancement within the game (gaining skills, 
honour, wealth, titles), for those that care about such things, all 
hinge on furthering your realm's success, through battles.  If you're at 
the top of the hierarchy, you gain power as your country does, relative 
to your peers.  If you're at the bottom, you open up possibilities for 
advancement (more territories = more positions) while also gaining the 
favour of your superiors who admire your devotion to the realm.  Most 
hours are therefore used in furthering a given realm's aims.  What we 
need  is things for nobles to do with their hours that can gain them 
power, relative to other nobles, regardless of their realm's successes 
or failures (at least to a point).  Basically, if a given noble spends 
all their time marching to the general's drum, while another noble 
spends all their time doing selfish things, the second noble should 
quickly gain /something/ worth having, relative to the other noble.  I'm 
not sure what that something should be (wealth? Land?  Influence?), but 
if a way can be found to add it, it will encourage nobles to be more 
independent and that, combined with a, above, would make things more 
interesting, in my opinion.  A good General would not only be one that 
was of superior strategic mind, but also one that could actually 
convince nobles to put aside their individual goals and follow the 
general's directives (which I think historically is the mark of a good 
leader).

Right now, I think most want military direction, because that is what 
they think the game is about (kicking other realm's butts).  I think the 
best way to change this thinking is not through rules, but through game 
mechanics which reward other behavior.










-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss