PDA

View Full Version : Use of Prestige in Campaigns


konstantinius
02-14-2005, 02:35 AM
I will start an attempt to document my own use of alternate campaign rules in an effort to publicize what has been extensive playtesting of a number of ideas, my own as well as others'.
I'm in year 11 of a European/Middle Eastern/N. Afica campaign involving no less than 26 nations; the start year being 1080 AD. Needles to say it is very time consuming and it's taken 4 1/2 years of actual time to get to this point. However long the time cost might be , I just can't leave all those other figures boxed and use only part of all these painted armies. There are rewards, though, for the diversity of conflict has led to some brilliant moments smile.gif .

Prestige Points are used pretty much as per rules with a few additions. PP represent one's overall military success, status, and influence. The more the PP, the better one's Diplomacy, Alliance, and Rebellion ratings (notes on those later--everything is decided on d6) will be.
PP are gained mostly by winning battles and territory, thus encouraging players to offer battle which is, after all, what DBA is all about.

Gaining of PP

As per rules, 1 PP for every enemy element destroyed in battle additional to your own; 2 for Gen, Baggage, BUA's (optional) or camps still held at end of battle; and 4 if enemy Gen is the leader of that nation(in which case a further Dead or Captive roll is taken).
Any cities ( I play with cities on an actual 11-12th c. map but they could be provinces or any territorial units chosen) other than the starting ones taken and held untill end of Fall add 2 PP at the end of the year; cities that are retaken by their original owner in the course of the same year being exempt.

Loss of PP is equal to the number or consecutive battles lost, i.e. on my 1st lost battle I loose 1 PP, on my 3rd lost battle in a row I loose 3 PP and so on (granted immediately at the end of the battle) .
Also, loss of territory without a fight (granted at the end of Fall round) is penalized by loss of 2 PP. Lost battles count as a fight; a siege without a battle with an outcome favorable to the besieged counts as a fight.
No one can go lower than 0 PP.

Keep figures handy as they'll be changing a lot; mine are on the desktop along with a few other shortcuts to different parts. Remember, some figures change at the end of each battle and some at the end of the campaign Year. There's a couple more adjustments at the end of the Year to be made but that'll be on other threads.
Cheers, K.

Macbeth
02-14-2005, 03:11 AM
A rule I have been toying with, but haven't yet put into practice.

At the end of any year where a vassal has a prestige rating higher than their overlord they lose 2 prestige points.

This is a way of bringing down some of the higher fliers, without having negative prestige penalties keeping most players around the zero mark.

Cheers

Timurilank
02-15-2005, 09:37 AM
Konstantinius wrote:
Prestige Points are used pretty much as per rules with a few additions. PP represent one's overall military success, status, and influence. The more the PP, the better one's Diplomacy, Alliance, and Rebellion ratings (notes on those later--everything is decided on d6) will be.
PP are gained mostly by winning battles and territory, thus encouraging players to offer battle which is, after all, what DBA is all about.
As the purpose of these new threads is to explore other possibilities of campaign development, I have read your use of the prestige point system and am curious would their not be a distinction between the prestige level of the field commander separate from that of the state. The commanderís prestige is equated to his success on the battlefield, but would not those points gained would be lost if he dies in combat? Secondly, despite the commanderís demise would not the state (I use this term to distinguish the governing body separate from the field commander) continue to enjoy its own level of success based on territorial expansion affecting the diplomacy, alliances and rebellion possibilities? It only needs to replace the general with one who must seek his own level of success on the battlefield.

There are many examples were too much success by a general in the field prompted a quick relocation elsewhere or retirement. There are also examples were the throne was seized by a successful general prompting the ruling government to seek shelter in another country.

Macbeth also used an example of three kingdoms with a subservient kingdom each. This would certainly create scope for maintaining the internal peace while fighting enemies outside oneís borders.

cheers,

konstantinius
02-16-2005, 05:01 PM
All the observations below are correct. A number of additional variants could be adopted here, i.e. the number of PP is halved when the ruler dies and is succeded by his "green" heir.
I try to keep it simple since there are already quite a few things to keep track of; however, one should feel free to add whatever their heart desires, as long it's been playtested and makes a bit of sense!

gwrfelling
03-10-2005, 05:02 PM
I have been experimenting with the use of prestige points as resources to be applied to attempts to curry imperial favors, to influence non-player faction activities, etc. They are also necessary to fulfill particular victory conditions. In many ways they are points with which to gamble or hoard.