Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Kings and more flexible gameplay

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Kings and more flexible gameplay

    (Decided to open a new topic for this to make my suggestion more vissible.)


    Quote Originally Posted by orko View Post
    I think every faction should be able to declare kingship. Unless, of course, they are allied with the king on the iron throne.


    There is some merit to this, in my opinion.

    Lannisters were kings in their own right before Aegon the Conquerer, and if Tywin’s alliance with his nephew would have failed (which I could very well see happening if Joffrey came of age before the wars were done), I could very well see him deciding, “Well, that Stark boy crowned himself as the King in the North, hm-m… What makes me worse? Long live Tywin of House Lannister, the First of His Name, Lion of the Rock and King of Westerlands!”


    Arryns likewise were the kings before Aegon the Conqueror, and it is definitely not impossible to see, say, Harry the Heir proclaiming himself King of the Vale, and lords and knights of the vale supporting his claim.

    Tullys and Tyrells are somewhat different matter, because they have never been kings, but even so, they had semi-autonomous rule over their lands for around 300 years, so if they were to declare themselves kings of their respective territories, most, if not all of their vassals would likely support them. Yes, it would be inconsistent with the books, as neither Tullys nor Tyrells sought independence, but I think that the point of this mod should be to let us *play* in Westros, not to follow books to the letter (and those who want to play in more consistence with the books can always turn down the option of claiming the crown).

    For Martells, though, are a different matter entirely. They have never been kings, they were “princes”, and as a matter of fact, they still are. So, no way for them to claim Principate, they are already Princes of Dorne, and as things stand at a Clash of Kings, they are paying the Iron Throne only lip service.

    However, as things stand at a Clash of Kings, Martells have Princess Myrcella at Sunspear, betrothed to Doran’s younger son, Trystane. And according to Dornish law, older sister inherits before her younger brother, which gives them an option to crown Myrcella as the Queen of Westoros, with Trystane as her king (an option, which some people actually sought to pursue in the books, although unsuccessfully). I think, it would be an interesting option for players to pursue.

    To conclude this, I would suggest the following (if it is possible to code it):

    Joffrey Baratheon, the King on the Iron Throne: begins as the king.

    Renly Baratheon, the Lord of Storm’s End: an option to claim the crown, AI is hard-coded to claim the crown at some point.

    Stannis Baratheon, the Lord of Dragonstone: an option to claim the crown, AI is hard-coded to claim the crown at some point.

    Starks: an option to claim the crown, AI is hard-coded to claim the crown at some point.

    Greyjoys: an option to claim the crown, AI is hard-coded to claim the crown at some point.

    Lannisters: an option to claim the crown IF their alliance with Joffrey is broken first, AI isn’t hard-coded to claim the crown.

    Arryns: an option to claim the crown, regardless of their possible alliance with Starks, AI isn’t hard-coded to claim the crown.

    Martells: an option to claim the crown IF:
    a) Trystane is alive and of age
    b) Myrcella is alive and married to Trystane
    c) Joffrey is dead
    The crown, obviously goes to Trystane, not Doran or anyone else.
    AI isn’t hard-coded to claim the crown.

    Tullys: an option to claim the crown, regardless of their alliance with Starks (if Robb crowned himself as the King in the North, why would he object to Edmure, his ally, crowing himself as the King of Riverlands), AI is hard-coded NOT to claim the crown.

    Tyrells: an option to claim the crown IF their alliance with Renly is broken first, AI is hard-coded NOT to claim the crown.

    P.S.

    I agree that players should be given more flexible victory conditions in this mod. Strict victory conditions, like “stay allied with Tullys” would reduce re-playability of this mod for the same faction to zero. Like I said, I think that the point of this mod should be to let us *play* in Westros, not to follow books to the letter. Instead of following the books story line, it would be more interesting, in my opinion, to explore various possibilities, for instance: how would Tullys fare if they choose to submit to Lannisters and ally with them rather then Robb, or if Tywin decided to forsake Joffrey and side with Renly and Tyrells, or if Martells decided to crown Myrcella, after all.
    Last edited by Tywin Lannister; May 08, 2009 at 08:12 AM. Reason: Forgot about Arryns

  2. #2
    Orko's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Petah Tikva, Israel
    Posts
    8,916

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    I think that claiming kingship should be different: the ones with the claim to the Iron Throne(Joffrey, Renly, Stannis and possibly Tyrells or Martells) need to conquer King's landing(and maybe the rest of the crownlands) in order to achieve victory, because it would make more sense that way because this way they become kingsof Westeros. The rest of the factions can claim soverignity(declare indipendence from the Iron Throne like Robb or Balon).
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
    Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    Rather like both ideas here...

    "Five had been his brothers. Oswell Whent and Jon Darry. Lewyn Martell, a prince of Dorne. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning. And beside them, crowned in mist and grief with his long hair streaming behind him, rode Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone and rightful heir to the Iron Throne."

  4. #4

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    Quote Originally Posted by stormbringer951 View Post
    Rather like both ideas here...
    Me, too. Is there a way scriptingwise to combine elements of both?

  5. #5
    Darkstar's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    1,032

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    Quote Originally Posted by toluas View Post
    Me, too. Is there a way scriptingwise to combine elements of both?
    The flexible victory conditions, which we've talked about before, is pretty easy to implement. You can have conditions like: Ally with Tullys OR control Riverrun. So that doesn't force a Stark player to be allied with the Tullys. They can choose to conquer them instead.

    It would also be pretty simple to extend the Kingship script to factions that don't currently have it. It will just require some thought about how we want the faction relations and victory conditions to change when they do. The Martells could get complicated though.

  6. #6
    Darkstar's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    1,032

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    Also, the Tullys might never have been Kings but remember that Harrenhal was the seat of King Harren the Black before Aegon's dragons torched him. So there is precedent for the Riverlands having a King.

  7. #7
    Orko's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Petah Tikva, Israel
    Posts
    8,916

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkstar View Post
    Also, the Tullys might never have been Kings but remember that Harrenhal was the seat of King Harren the Black before Aegon's dragons torched him. So there is precedent for the Riverlands having a King.
    Harren the black was an ironman who conquered the riverlands(or was it his grandfather?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
    Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    Maybe hold Harrenhal and Riverrun?

    "Five had been his brothers. Oswell Whent and Jon Darry. Lewyn Martell, a prince of Dorne. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning. And beside them, crowned in mist and grief with his long hair streaming behind him, rode Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone and rightful heir to the Iron Throne."

  9. #9

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    We are probably going to have two campaigns, a book one (with AI configged to work with the book) and a free-for-all one

    "Five had been his brothers. Oswell Whent and Jon Darry. Lewyn Martell, a prince of Dorne. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning. And beside them, crowned in mist and grief with his long hair streaming behind him, rode Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone and rightful heir to the Iron Throne."

  10. #10
    Orko's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Petah Tikva, Israel
    Posts
    8,916

    Default Re: Kings and more flexible gameplay

    It might can be done that the Martells can crown Myrcella if she is married to a Martell family member and and Joffrey is dead. it would be quite nice to see Dornishmen besieging king's landing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
    Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •