Honour. Are LGDR games becoming too dominated by it.

Hi all. Thought i would ask everyones view about the above subject.I have made the mistake of useing low caste Indian recruits as tax collectors. In a nutshel; i lost six honour points in two turns.How long does it take us players to pick up six honour points? has anybody ever picked up six points in two turns? i know that i never have, or even come close.

I feel we are getting away from the wargaming side of the games and turning them into a "gentlemans eighteenth century lifestyle game". Honour points are far too hard to gain, and far too easy to lose, in my experiance.What do others think?

In reality,most Kings had low honour, and were not greatly thought of. Yet there honour was not so low that disasters would happen too them, as happens in LGDR when honour gets very low.I feel the games are too reliant on honour,unrightly so.So i thought i would gage other players opinions. Just in case i am being paranoid.

I have had games where I have gained four or five honour points in a couple of turns it has to be said, usually for no discernible reason (to me at least). Having said that, whenever I have lost honour, I have never quite worked out why either

Ditto Jason, but to be fair, it was in game 3 where I had some fairly sizeable swings as the Pope. I think in the much older games, everyone's average honor is much higher, so the swings are also larger, and in it is easier to gain honour in the game of 'catch up'.

In Game 8, building honour has been a real slow slog. I'm pretty sure I've never gotten more than a point a turn. And to reveal where we are, if I lost 6 honor that would take out everything I've gained to date in the game. That would sting a lot.

My view of the game is that it has 4 aspects, roleplaying, wargaming, economic, and diplomatic. To do well, you have to be at least aware of all of them. Honour is, I think, related to everything but the economic part of the game.

I think Richard uses honour 2 ways.

First, to reward or punish your success or failings on the public stage. Win a war, gain honour. Win a public confrontation, win honour. Seal some good treaties, win honour. Lose any of these and lose honour. Do things that your people don't like, and lose honour. As Pope in game 3, this is where I got my swings both up and down.

Second, Richard wants us to act in period. If you step out, he'll punish you. I'm guessing this is how you got hit. It seems like a pretty large hit to me given the stage of the game, but the Spanish king's title is "his most catholic majesty" so it may be that Spain has less degrees of freedom on this score. Using any non-catholic might be a problem.

Reading the paper, Venice is having a similar problem because the nobles are up in arms about tax collectors, and others here have mentioned that they've all lost honour implementing tax collectors, even when they were their own people.

I can also see honour as the currency you use to make unpopular decisions. You have to build up enough support before you can do unpopular things. If you think about it historically, even absolute rulers weren't really absolute, they just have more freedom than others.

If Louis decided all of France was going to convert to Islam, I think he would be hung from a lamp post in short order, absolute monarch or no! England's conversion to protestantism was a very messy affair, and Henry had about as much absolute power as any European monarch. Rulers can do anything within reason and there in lies the rub. Richard's view of within reason, and a player's view may not align.

I think that I've been able to avoid a couple of honour blowups by asking advisors. They have given me feedback that I wouldn't have expected on some of my proposals. I'll be implementing tax collectors in game 3 next year, so I guess I'll have a chance to see how it goes there.

In the end, I think honour really isn't that important, provided you have enough to withstand an unpopular decision, and enough to ensure that your military will perform if necessary.

I think Deacon is right about honour as currency for decisions (as well as being a literal currency for yourself). Perhaps in some earlier games honour was too easy to get, in Game 3 at one stage my honour income was something like 25% of my nations income, far more than I got from trade! It does seem harder to build up in Game 8 but I also wonder if its more sophisticated, even personalised, in Game 8? It took me 16 months to work out what I needed to do in that game to increase honour...and in the following 3 months my honour score increased by as much as it had in the last 16.

I also agree with Louis, honour helps encourage the non-military aspects.

I do like the honour system it has to be said. I also think that if anything some of the recent rule changes around military orders makes fighting wars easier. Playing a nation with only 24 military orders a year, it would take years to get the nation to a stage where it had enough military forces to fight, now (if you are willing to pay) you can get a nation ready much quicker.

On your situation James, I wonder if the loss was also caused by other actions? I wonder if the situation with the cavalry regiments might have also impacted on your score?

I do agree with the popular decision that honour has a place in the game. My problem is, i think it has too big a position in the game.
When some people can gain an extra 25 per cent of their income due to it, that seems too much.In just a few months there are massive swings.I think too big a swing.

I would not class myself as a wargamer. I have been playing LGDR for seven years and have only been involved in one war. I would like honour to be a part of the game, but i question weather it is getting too dominant within the game system.

I know of a player who has an honour score approaching 50 points. That has too be too many. He has not joined in a crusade against the moors, with his fellow catholic nations,yet he still retains this high honour score.The catholic alliance has even promised to give the conquered moorish lands to the pope to rule.

This has too be an example of honour becoming too important a role within the game and being unrealistic. That is my opinion anyway.

I don't have enough data on other games to say, but I'm told that some players in game 3 have honour in the 80s or more.

But I don't think old games are comparable to new ones. It is 1737 in game 3, so a couple of points a year would put you in the 70s! So, I'm not sure the high honour numbers there are off. It's just they've been around a long time.

The problem with using low-caste hindu at any tasks other than menial labour is that the rest of hindu society regards them as lower than the dirt under their boots and would be shocked and furious if any low-caste is put into any position of authority. And tax collector certainly count as a strong position of authority.
The impact would probably be less in a non hindu society where the distinction between low caste and high caste is less well known or indeed bothered about.

You must remember that honour is how you are viewed by your nobles start doing things they did not like and your honour goes down the pan.

I have had an increase of at least 2 points in a row bwefore now, so it is possible the mechanics are hidden but some can guess how it works for them.

Honour only controls units (how many) and it can idicate a looming rebellion if too low...

I beleive that Honour is a way for Richard to control players within the game, in Game 2 there was an attempt to create the French Revolution 100 years too early, the Republic fell with a much reduced honour score. I think it is also a way to encourage civilised behaviour in game, if an attack in the newspaper is too personal then honour is usually deducted, or that is at least the impression I have had to date.

It has been mentioned above that you only need to keep your Nobles happy, there may be an argument that says that it is dependant on your position. As Pope you need to keep the Catholic Clergy happy, if you are running a trade company then your Shareholders maybe the source of your Honour points, Prussia is more military, Holland more trade/merchant orientated.

I think we can all agree that we none of us fully understand the +/- system of Honour, it is in the hands of the gods.

Very well put Jason... Yet another layer of realism that we can't possible control!

J Flower wrote:I beleive that Honour is a way for Richard to control players within the game, in Game 2 there was an attempt to create the French Revolution 100 years too early, the Republic fell with a much reduced honour score. I think it is also a way to encourage civilised behaviour in game, if an attack in the newspaper is too personal then honour is usually deducted, or that is at least the impression I have had to date.

It has been mentioned above that you only need to keep your Nobles happy, there may be an argument that says that it is dependant on your position. As Pope you need to keep the Catholic Clergy happy, if you are running a trade company then your Shareholders maybe the source of your Honour points, Prussia is more military, Holland more trade/merchant orientated.

I think we can all agree that we none of us fully understand the +/- system of Honour, it is in the hands of the gods.

An attempt to start the french revolution 100 years early? That sounds intriguing, can you tell us the tale in more detail?

One thing which has always baffled me about honour is that some very non military characters have very high honour scores.

Does this make them more effective generals than characters who have spent years fighting?

I would imagine not. Honour is a score that determines if men respect you enough to follow you. It doesn't mean you'll lead them to good places!

But I think the point you raise is relevant. Honour is a notation of how well you're playing to type. People have expectations of what a person ought to be, and if you exemplify it, you gain honour.

If on the News letter alongside the Honour score a list indicating the richest Nation or the Largest army were also listed, would it mean that we wouldn't all take the honour quite so seriuosly? As it to my knowledge to one visiable way of seeing how well you are doing in comparison to others then could be that it plays an overbearing influence on our actions. Then again it may make some of us think twice before undertaking dasterdly( is that a word?) actions. It also is a great leveler, even the small positions can get in on the act without great military action, or the Pirates can Rape & pillage all in character & gain honour.

Is honour also just to do with leadership, surley keeping your word, staying true to your relegion are also honourable actions? Do we mix Honour and respect?

I played Venice in Game 4 (now defunct) and was top of the list for quite a few years, BUT I was also the poorest nation. As Venice I just managed to keep my self going no idea how but it worked, well at least till I had the Russian ambassadors horses head put in his bed, the shock caused him to shoot himslef, not the first time an action I did has caused that result!!!

Yes, in Game 2 there was a French revolution. King in hte Bastile, nobles fled in fear of there lives. then French armies decided to spread the word of the Revolution into Germany. There were swarms of French Voltigiers on hte Battle fields of Europe. However they were reported in the press as untrained & uncertain as to what to do. It was also hte one time in Game that the HRE united against a common foe. the whole thing lasted less than a year. then the Burocrats took over in France, the King was reinstated but played along in the Background. It was all a bit of a flash in the pan. had little long term impact on Game.

Deacon wrote:But I think the point you raise is relevant. Honour is a notation of how well you're playing to type. People have expectations of what a person ought to be, and if you exemplify it, you gain honour.

I think Deacon's hit it on the head 'Honour' might not always be the right word for it as a pirate lord gets 'honour' by going round raping, pillaging and nicking other peoples stuff...which is only seen as honourable when your ancestors did it, not you

In at least one game when I have been a Chinese player, my 'honour' score was how the Emperor viewed me...and the best way to increase my honour was therefore to send him gifts regularly and often, more felt like bribes to make him like me

On a separate issue-the early French Revolution, who caused it/led it? I can't see Richard creating a character whose mission was to start the revolution so did an existing French player cause it deliberately or was it a case of the French player doing so badly his downtrodden masses rose up?

Ref the French Revolution;
it was a new player who took it upon himself to inflict the revolution on his position. I know from having talked to subsequent French player ( diplomatically) that the position was in a mess. Both financially & Honourwise. I think Richard simply let the game run it's course, as the troops reacted to the low honour score that the actions of the player had created by unhistorical play, maybe if the build up to the revolution had been better handled then it would have been differant. Simply asking your troops to adopt a new method of fighting isn't enough. Plus the social economic factors at the time were differant.

Interesting. I think the player might have been better served by playing a revolutionary seeking to overthrow the king, rather than the actual french position. Then they could spend several years building up the base to take over.

Yes, Ithink you are correct. however it was very early in the Game. I wonder now looking back if the player actually knew what he was doing. It may have been the case that they were more interested in Napoleonic period than the Age of Enlightenment. Maybe they simply wanted to move the position in a direction they were personally more at home with. Luckily it didn' t work.

Back to the subject of Honour, I personally feel that over time honour has become much more difficult to aquire. Maybe new players with fresh ideas have a differant outlook. I seem to remember when I initially started playing that so long as you had regular Balls, Banquets etc for the Nobles. Made a few announcements decrying the other relegion, then you were assured a rising score. The same seems to no longer be true or at least that is my perception. In the introduction to Honour in the Rule book under Honour we are told players with "1" are exceedinly unpopular with High Society, Should you ever reach the giddy heights of 10 or more, you can assume yourself to be generally admired. So those with honour scores way up and beyond this are obviously extremly admirable.

As players come & go it seems that the same positions have the ability to remain constantly at the top of the list, even when the position remains dormant for long periods of time. I wonder if this is totally fair as new players benefit from the actions of there prior players.

each coutry has different ways of gaining honour, for instance Prussia loes honour every time Austria aka the HRE critisises it.

Prities on the other hand lose honour if they are nice to ppl, the more blood thirtsy they are the better the honour.

You just need to work out who or where to get some....

Not long ago in game 2 i banned a player's trade in my lands after he, as i saw it, mistreated an ally. Without warning I seized all trade caravans in my lands and all his shipping in my ports. 4 honour points were lost in one month. I received two back by selling all seized goods and vessels and donating all monies to the religious authorities to provide for the poor.
It was a lesson in how not to behave even if i felt it was right.

interesting topic ! I have just made the top 10 in game 8 for honour and as my economy is in the toilet the only reason for my rise
that I can think of is a banquet held for my nobles and high society as well as the start of friendly diplomatic relations oh and I
did build public gardens in my capital.
I wonder "The Great Unwashed" if you lost honour for banning trade and seizing the trade goods.
Or because you did so without informing said party that you where doing so. Maybe you would have gained honour if after informing
the nation that they had offended you by mistreating your ally and giving them time to put things right and only then seizing said
goods if they did not comply.
I find that an interesting thought anyway.

One Grain.