Warlords: Three Kingdoms

That is a point, 100 fame seems a heck of a lot just for sealing an alliance (although I guess a particularly evil ruler could execute his rival then and there etc), but I think that as long as that rule/amount is there, the fame shouldn't be taken away from people who have signed shorter ones already. I also think that most rulers are picking carefully which alliances they sign anyway, since you only need a few for the rank gain and it'd be foolish to just sign up with everyone possible.

Anyway, that's the case I plead, I think we'd better stop now since I think this thread's just for single suggestions not fully fledged discussions...

I completely agree with Naurek and SZM on this issue. Even if the rule wasn't added till now. Like Naurek said. No harm no foul. It's not a big deal if A) the rulers need to increase their alliance to six months or B) They just don't get fame for it. Also I like the 20 points of fame Naurek suggestion. It makes good sense and makes PCs want to visit audience halls for the fame bonus. Where as with no fame. They'd be afraid of getting killed and with too much fame. It makes the system horribly unbalanced. It basically boils down to. You either earn your fame or you get nothing.

Just to clarify - fame being granted immediately on the negotiation of an alliance is not new. In fact it was the rule all last sim. What I think XZ was attempting to make clear was that the alliance may not be negotiated to last less than six months and still result in a fame game. IE my guy negotiates one month non aggression between my city and the neighbor. No fame gain there at start or end. But I negotiate an alliance to last six months then I get it now. Alliances are publicized when they are made not after they've been completed. That's all fame is after all.

Well, that's fine with me, if that's how it is. I read the 6 month thing as though it had to be in effect for six months. Well, that works.

As a great proponent of the Xiang Yu style of dealing with enemy cities, I suggest that the sacking option allows people to stay at the location after sacking of the city so that it is possible to continue on to sacking other enemy targets immediately instead of having to take an extra turn to occupy the sacked city and then attack.

I would like to suggest/request a thread or post somewhere that shows what rulers have what cities/towns/villiages in what province. In the map thread it is listed but it is listed alphabeticly and so it is difficult to get a picture of who is where.

If not alphabetical - how did you want the list ordered?

Oh, I dont mind alpabetical, its just that since it is listed in alphabetical order by province you have to skip around all over to find what ruler has what cities in what province.

While currently this is only a problem with the big GMNPC kingdoms I think that later it will be the same for the PC kingdoms that get big too. If there were say a seperate list that went by ruler instead of province in alphabetical order you could simply look up the ruler and see "so-and-so has this city, that town, and those cilages in this provance and those towns and that village in that proviance" instead of skipping around scanning each provance to see who is where.

The purpose of this would be to help players get a feel for who controls where. Since people dont generaly control a whole provance and there is no fixed location marked for cities and cillages you cant color the map for a visual reference so the next best thing is a reference by list. Since the provances are not near there alphabetical counterparts out of naccessity then it means a lot of scrolling up and down the list in the map thread and holding info in your head to see who is where and since they dont control whole provances the information you must keep in your head is compounded.

If you really wanted I could make such a list and post it as an example.

Feel free! If you don't get around to it I will eventually

Can we have a map with colored and labled cities, so we know where the rulers are with more ease?