Thoughts on Fiefs and FED Shares

[interpol99]

At present I think there is some confusion caused by having both individual planet fiefs and shares in the FED. I'm sure I'm not the only one who found this confusing at first, and even after you've realized what all of these systems do, it remains un-thematic or at least sort of inconsistent in terms of the lore. Why assign fiefs to individual houses if ultimately the FDD shares determine income? Why have the player tracking both fief assignment and FED shares at the same time?

Don't get me wrong - fiefs and the FED are both cool concepts. The FED in particular reminds me of CHOAM from Dune. It's more their simultaneous co-existence that seems off.

I think the solution is to make the fiefs the starting system for noble houses, and FED is an evolution that occurs once you reach a certain centralization (how about 5, since there is currently no effect from getting to 5, instead there is an effect at 3, 7, and 11). 
The idea is that when you reach this amount of centralization, the Emperor is able to revoke house control over individual planets and replace them with shares in the FED.

I think this is very thematic and fits with the idea that gradually the noble houses are having their military prerogatives revoked and turned into a service aristocracy. There could be an initial FED share issuance meeting in which the base shares are allocated, and then a series of periodic meetings where the current FED share adjustment event triggers.

The base share allocation meeting would need to be slightly different from the period adjustment event, to prevent exploiting the game by having the player give themselves too many of the shares. The options should be to distribute: equally to all houses (including your own), by rank (so privilege the imperial house, then dukes, then barons), in proportion to fiefs, by authority, or by monarchism. Regardless of which option was chosen, there should be some evening out so that the distribution is not too lop-sided. And of course, each option would come with relationship benefits/penalties depending on whether a house felt that it was gaining or losing from the change.

I would also suggest that the way fiefs interact with rebellion be adjusted. I would make it such that any house which joins the Rebellion automatically brings all of its fiefdom planets with it. This creates big incentives for the players to keep the noble houses happy, and to reach centralization 5 prior to any rebellions happening. If rebellion happens before the FED directorate is put in place, then the fact that noble houses control specific planets matters greatly, since those planets join the rebellion. But if the reform is passed, then the current system applies for determining which planets join the rebellion.

I think these two proposals have a lot of benefits:

• They simplify the game and make it easier to learn, since the player only needs to interact with fiefs or FED shares, and never both.
• They add depth, since there is now an interesting transformation of the empire at centralization 5. The initial share issuance meeting will present the player with an interesting, impactful, and thematic choice.
  
• They fit the theme of centralization and asserting control over the noble houses.
  
• They create an interesting dilemma regarding early game rebellions if you cannot reach the right centralization. This could be particularly interesting for players who want difficulty challenges.

[Chris Koźmik]

Originally posted by interpol99:

I think the solution is to make the fiefs the starting system for noble houses, and FED is an evolution that occurs once you reach a certain centralization

It's not doable technically I'm afraid... First of all, you can start with single planet or with several planets (with fiefs assigned), so there is a different dynamic. Second, it's a thing the player controls (fiefs proportional to expansion) and also controlled by the system (fiefs event) there is also grant fiefs mechanic (which would need to be disabled at some point)... Then there goes F.E.D. Directorship even which is TIMED but also can be triggered by the PLAYER (techs)... It's a total mess, to try to disable the system and replace in the middle with just FED would be a pandora's box full of bugs and edge cases :D

Not that I do not agree with the reasoning... I would like to adjust the Fiefs system, which I find kind of flawed to be honest. But there must be a less destructive (simpler) way of doing it :)

Alternatively, we could just disable Fiefs system... but... I'm not sure.

[interpol99]

I understand! The programming complexity may make certain gameplay changes unviable.

Disabling individual fiefs might be worth considering. It would depend on whether other players find that they add anything other than complexity/clutter.

Although if you can disable fiefs, perhaps the solution is to start with both, then allow fief disabling as part of centralization?

[Chris Koźmik]

Originally posted by interpol99:

Although if you can disable fiefs, perhaps the solution is to start with both, then allow fief disabling as part of centralization?

To get to the root of it (I hate half solutions and stopping half way :D). Why you want fiefs disabled in the first place? Do you maybe feel it would be better that the whole Fiefs system was removed altogether and not mentioned anywhere in any game mechanics?

Or to be more precise REMOVE vs ADJUST.

Note: Instead of disabling fiefs mid game, I would rather add a rule like "after centralization 5 every 20 turns 1 fief is transferred from a noble house to the royal house" or something along those lines. OR "Fiefs come under imperial supervision" (different neutral crest), but the system theoretically works as usual.

[interpol99]

I think there are two reasons for my proposed change. One is that I like both systems, and this seemed like a way to combine them. It also seems thematic that individual planetary control is then replaced by a shareholder system. So I thought it could be a nice way to tie the two mechanics together with the theme and progress of the game.

But the reason why I would say the fief system doesn't necessarily work well is that it doesn't behave the way the player probably expects it to behave. World's controlled by one house don't react that way in any meaningful sense. They don't defect when they're ruling house defects the Rebellion. And they aren't a source of income. So it just seems meaningless to call them fiefs. They don't behave like fiefs either militarily or economically, really.

So the other option is to adjust the fief system by making it more feudal in nature. Since FED will continue, then personally I like the idea of a house's fief affecting rebellion by the worlds that house controls.

Regardless of how the fief/FED systems go, I would suggest adding some additonal events related to them. Perhaps for one of the events involving conflict between two houses, your decision to side with one or the other transfers a planet between fiefs. Or you could confiscate the planet for the Imperial fiefdom...

[interpol99]

Like so many systems in the game, it is not a bad system at all. Just sometimes a bit opaque, or perhaps one that offers the chance for added depth without too much complexity!

[Chris Koźmik]

Also, here is a very old (and outdated) topic from E.A. about Fiefs:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1437750/discussions/1/3363650131517789986/
It might give you some interesting ideas maybe?

[interpol99]

Interesting how few people knew what a fief is... I just assumed that was common knowledge among anyone who had a passing intetest in the Middle Ages as a child!

I think the idea of Thieves is a good one if they are implemented in a way that has some relation to what that name means historically. If thieves are in some sense governed or controlled or owned or at least influenced by the owning house, then I think that's a good implementation. If there's no real effect from a thief belonging to a given house, other than a minor impact on authority, I don't think it makes sense to call them peeps. You could just say that the house got to nominate the governor of that world or something. That would be closer to the current game effect of a planet being the Feast of a noble house. It would also be fanatic because it represents the reason why these Noble houses would agree to be part of the empire in the first place. They benefit when you colonize or conquer worlds because they will those worlds will be distributed to them.

And I continue to think that a transition from the thief mechanic to the shares mechanic is the right approach. The shares given much more centralized approach to governance, and it would make sense that those shares become a replacement for direct control over planets. The share governance structure also reminds me of dune, which was a more centralized Interstellar Empire.

I realize I'm repeating my initial opinion, but that's just because I haven't seen much from that discussion that changes what would make the most sense for Stellar Monarch 2. If fiefs will be kept, then they should be more impactful and have effects closer to their historical counterparts. And in my opinion both the thief system and the share system are interesting, so one should transition into the other. It just doesn't make sense to have both simultaneously.

[Chris Koźmik]

I was thinking about Fiefs... And I have those random, unfinished thoughts...

a) Limit core worlds to 25/30 worlds and then allocate each fief manually. Then make the location of fiefs (proximity to Terra) more important during rebellion.
b) All planets are fiefs (not tied to core worlds concept at all). You manually assign the home fief of a house (must be on a Habitability 7+ planet) and then they claim fiefs (over time?) on proximity to it (so you, probably, end up with 7 clusters of fiefs with your house fiefs in the middle). Then proximity to Terra counts during rebellion.
Possibly with a variant that the royal house can't hold many fiefs, so the safe buffer around Terra can't be assured by the royal family fiefs, and is to be assigned to some other house.

[Chris Koźmik]

Fiefs redesign idea:

Premise: Fiefs are a kind of relic of the past and those are more valuable to noble houses than to the Emperor. In addition, fiefs are more efficiently managed by nobles than the Emperor (who has no time for this since he has to rule to oversee the whole Empire).

- Each planet is a fief (core status irrelevant).
- By default, each fief belongs to the Emperor (theoretically one could end up with all fiefs under own control).
- There are various events which allows granting charters to fiefs.
- Each house has number of ACTUAL fiefs they control and the number of CHARTERS (promised) fiefs.
- Once in a while (once per council? possibly with some option to make it earlier or postpone), Bureau of Fiefs Registration redistributes (auto) imperial fiefs according to granted Charters (taking those from the Emperor).
- When there is not enough fiefs to give out (overpromised or lost to aliens) and the B.O.F.R. can not redistribute it triggers a negative event. Each time B.O.F.R. has a shortage.
- Noble Houses get Authority for holding fiefs BUT except Royal House (no Authority bonus from fiefs for the Emperor).
- All planets under Royal House rule get a penalty -10% to Output OR All fiefs of other houses get a bonus (nobles more efficient at supervising distant colonies).
- (optional) If the Royal House holds above the "free quota of fiefs" there is a penalty to Adm pts generation.
- (optional) When there are too many fiefs under Emperors direct control it triggers a negative audience option (has to spend extra Focus pts, etc).

EDIT: Made a dedicated topic for fiefs:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1437750/discussions/0/3819669231699073752/