What I Think Honour Is

What is Honour and Why do you care? ( A bit long, but a complex topic!)

Since the honour standings are reported each month in the paper, I think they’ve taken on a bit more importance than they really warrant. But a lot of players seem to care a lot, so as someone who seems to be doing very well on the honour standings, I’d like to share my wisdom, such as it is.

First, step back and think about game design and what “The Glory of Kings” is, as a game.

It is an 18th century simulation of ‘civilization’. You get the assets of a ruler using the abstractions of the rules (recruits, income, etc.) and you try to make your position bigger, better, and shinier than the historical version. Or maybe just different. Your call.

But step back a moment and think about what life was like in the 18th century and all the social baggage of the time. If you’re doing just a war/building game simulation, then the only measure of success is bigger, better and shinier. Literally anything you could do to achieve that would be ok. But if you do that, then the game really isn’t an 18th century simulation any more. Whatever you want to do would be ok. That might make for an interesting game in some ways, but it would NOT be an 18th century simulation. To be an 18th century simulation you need all the social baggage of the period to stay more or less intact.

Enter honour.

Honour is the carrot and the stick with which the gamemaster keeps you ‘in character’ in the period. You can probably revolutionize your nation, but it must happen at a pace suitable to the period and with the matching social upheaval. Honour is the rails that keep the game from devolving into a colorless winner-take-all slug match.

I think honour is a measure of how well you play the ‘social game’.

Honour is _not_ prestige or standing in the global order. It is not a measure of real power in any way. It is not a measure of how important or successful a man you are. If it were, the big positions would always dominate. Everybody is going to think the Holy Roman Emperor is a bigger man than some small German princeling.
Honour is not a measure of how well you’re playing the war game/empire building part of the game. If it was, how would the Gamemaster manage the differences between a smaller position and a larger one?

In my game guide, I said that it is best to think of honour as a game currency. You build it up by doing the right things, and then spend it when you want to ‘break the rules’.

For example, in Hispania in game 8, my king thinks the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions are beyond stupid. But I’m _still_ working in 1707 to get the Spanish inquisition shut down because the Spanish people think it’s the right thing. I could just order it shuttered and take the honour hit, but I’d rather work within the social framework to get people to let it go.

If you really want to gain honour, I’ll share my tips, in so much as I think the game is better when people play their characters better. (I may regret showing my hand, but I hope this helps folks.)

1) Imagine your ruler as a person. What does he like, and dislike? What are his interests and hobbies? If some bit of personality shines through the newspaper, that’s excellent.

2) Write something for the newspaper every month. Think about what your ruler should be doing, and his interests and try to find something that reflects both. In Hispania for a while there was a lot about the Crown Prince’s pygmy slaves, and then he grew out of them and now it’s about his interest in bull fighting. My king thinks he should go hunting but doesn’t really like it, so every time he goes out hunting it quickly turns into a large party in a tent for the boys.

3) Suck up to your court. That means hosting banquets regularly for no reason other than rulers should be hosting such affairs for their courts. That means playing up your religion and endowing churchs/mosques/stupas. That means giving money to the poor. That means hosting concerts and plays. These actions spend your money for no real advantage, but they do affect your honour score. Rulers are supposed to be patrons of the arts, so be one.

4) Be patient. A little bit every month works better than trying to do a big splash every couple of months. People’s opinions don’t change quickly, and they’re more likely to notice your consistency than a few one-offs. I think there is a natural limit to gains each month from pretty much any normal activity, so unless you are planning on blowing 100K every month, doing it just once and expecting a big boost is bound to disappoint.

5) Be consistent as a character. I think you’re better off figuring out who you are as a character and playing to that consistently. If you try something new and different every month to ‘see’ what gets you honour, most of it won’t. Predictability matters to your court. In Hispania, Pedro is not the sun king. He isn’t by nature prone to flashiness. He prefers the Spanish Gitar to a full orchestra. But those things get revealed from time to time in the paper write-ups I do and they haven’t changed since I started playing the position. I hope by now the Gamemaster rewards the consistency of portrayal.

6) Don’t obsess. Honour may be a currency, but it won’t win a battle for you. The fact that it’s reported every month is nice, but don’t let that make you think it trumps the size of your army, navy and treasury. It is valuable, and you do want a good honour score as insurance, but keep your game objectives in mind. Honour is a path to an end, it isn’t an end in itself.

Military success and Honour:

So let me add a final side note on military success and honour.

Because honour is _not_ a measure of prestige, military success isn’t typically going to raise it. For that matter, failure isn’t going to lower it. Leaders for millennia have blamed their generals for their failures, but the success has reflected on the generals too.

That said, I think there are times and ways to tie honour and military success.

First, putting your leader on the field of battle would be the biggest one. You will be risking their death or injury, but then your personal bravery will be hailed, and the victory will reflect directly on you, not just on your generals. Just be prepared for the worst if you want to do this. Is your ruler a natural general who loves battle? Go for it. But be prepared for the chance of a short life or a lost limb!

Second, gamble your honour on military success. Boasting is a very venerable way of gaining honour. You swear before all that you’re going to go out and do something, then you go out and do it. If you stake your personal honour on a military goal that isn’t a slam dunk, then people will notice when you go out and do it. And they’ll ding you if you don’t do it. I wouldn’t expect this to work if the goal you set is too small or easy though.

Rewarding your troops for success is a way some people think might gain honour. My supposition is that this doesn’t. It just improves the underlying moral of the units. In future battles they know they’ll get something extra for victory and will fight harder for you. The gamemaster deliberately hides most of these features of the game however, so who really knows?

Very good post Deacon, thank you for your time.

The question I would ask is. " surely gaining towns and recruits in battle and taking 10 towns by victory and gaining those added revenues must impress the Nobles enough to gain honour."

If you play the game as a wargame, not political you are at a major disadvantage with honour. Don't see quite fair there for me.

You gain 10 towns in battle. Defeating the enemy rulers gaining money, recruits, but get no honour points. You have a ball every month and gain 3 points a year.

Does that really seem fair.?

jamesbond007 wrote:Very good post Deacon, thank you for your time.

The question I would ask is. " surely gaining towns and recruits in battle and taking 10 towns by victory and gaining those added revenues must impress the Nobles enough to gain honour."

If you play the game as a wargame, not political you are at a major disadvantage with honour. Don't see quite fair there for me.

You gain 10 towns in battle. Defeating the enemy rulers gaining money, recruits, but get no honour points. You have a ball every month and gain 3 points a year.

Does that really seem fair.?

Please forgive me, but I think this comment misses the point. Honour is _NOT_ a measure of military success and cannot be. In a war game like Glory, Military success has to be its own reward. Otherwise you could 'game' the honour system by doubling down on military actions. Everybody would climb the honour rolls by just attacking neighbors. The whole cultural part of the game would be lost.

I think the problem is that there is no published measure for military success so people turn the honour rankings into more than they are. I wish the game had some 'military honour' score that showed how feared/respected your army and navy are. The Moghul in both game 8 and game 10 are tearing up their adversaries, and people ought to have some respect for those armies.

I have no idea how you would create or manage such a score, but it would help really drive home the point that honour standings are just one single measure of game success and probably not even the most important one.

Since Glory is a simulation, you can play it anyway you want.

You can focus on military success, and your measure of success will be the towns and territory taken.
You can focus on your economy, and your measure of success will be your Economic Health and your income.
You can focus on science, and your measure of success will be the number of inventions you have.
You can focus on honour, and your measure of success will be your honour standing.

The trouble is that _all_ of these are legitimate ways to play the game, but only one of them lists a 'score' each turn. The Trade leaders by region is a good step in the right direction of showing other measures of game success.

Perhaps if you've ever played the game "civilization" think of honour as your "cultural score". Your cultural score says nothing about how big your civilization is, or how many cities you've conquered. There are other scores for those things. You never get culture points in CiV for armies or military victories. It's a lot like that.

Perhaps the score's name as "honour" is part of what causes the confusion.

Found both your comments very interesting.  For myself, my views on honour and how it works in game and what it represents are very close to Deacons...though he put it much better than I could have done

I understand JB007 point and understand that not seeing your honour score increase with military success but I think Deacon is correct in that military success is measured differently. The Moghuls in G8 may not be getting honour points for their conquests but boy their army is respected/feared as a result!
I also sometimes wonder if in the early 18th C, was war seemed as 'honourable'?  A noble in that time might not see it in that light at all.  In Europe we're only 50 years after the 30 Years War, when you look at the devastation that caused, if you were a noble whose family estates had only just recovered from that conflict, would you really want to risk that again?  Also a war takes people away from the land, can lead to increases in banditry (even in places far from the battlefront) and messes up trade, all things nobles might want to avoid.
I seem to remember reading that in most of Europe in the early 18th C (wish I could find the source) that wearing military uniform at court was frowned up unless you were a serving soldier either on his way to serve in a war or on the way back, andyou simply didn't have time to change clothes.

Two good posts Deacon

I'll be honest and admit that I sometimes forget and mix up in my mind the Honour table with a sort of sports league table, stating who is 'winning'.

For me I view Honour akin to dignitas (the Roman concept). Obviously, it being personal to the character, and something that is gained by individual and personal feats done by such.

I'd like to see some form of recognition for military reputation. But I suppose that's what the newspaper articles reflect somewhat. If a player makes an excellent tactical play, its well written in the newspaper. If the military is excellent, the newspaper reports it as well led, motivated, successful. Though, unlike Honour, such recognition is easily overtaken by other news since it doesn't have a scoring or recognition system. Only way I can see to gain from military reputation, as the game is played now, is to have the player's character cash-in on the successes as much as he can and grow his honour score with them. Only a player who has enjoyed military successes will be allowed (by the GM with his subtle ways) to boast about it in the newspapers - If someone tried to lay claim to military success who hadn't earned it, the newspaper would quickly report court gossip stating such. Also, other players would quickly cash-in and write disparaging tales on the character and his lies.

I suppose all I've written is just my way of saying I agree with Deacon

I will add for the sake of disclosure, that I also do 'roleplay' on my turn in private with my ministers.

By which I mean when I'm asking them advice or the like, I'll write what I say to them out as if it were my dialogue. I write a lot for work, so this is just natural for me to do. I then follow that with some bold-font out-of-character summary of the question I'm asking in case I've lost Richard with my meandering comments, and to help Richard frame the reply to the question/issue my dialogue raised. I think explaining my thinking on an issue and what I'm concerned about, however, helps my ministers address my whole issue and my objectives and I get more useful/actionable answers.

I don't think this much affects honour, if at all. I just like to do it, but I mention it anyway.

I used to do this a LOT. But I found that I ended up with too many processing errors because I think Richard struggled to extract an actual turn order out of the wall of text I'd send. So these days I try to ramp down the roleplaying to more manageable chunks to try to avoid making Richard's eyes bleed.

If this doesn't come relatively naturally to you, then I wouldn't suggest you try. Too many years of being a roleplaying gamer makes it hard for me to shut up.

Maybe you need to tie in the Military conquest with the Nobility , if you take 10 towns then making leading members of the nobility a governor of the town , or an Earl, Baron or Duke of the area capture would show your generosity as a benevolent ruler, cheer up the Nobility because they are sharing in your success & basking in your glory. Probably showering gifts, titles & praise on the generals who did the fighting may help as well, as then the military also see that they are rewarded.

I think you're all right that Honour is a tool used to reward good "C18th actions & role play of your main character. If you look into the Personality of your leader & what he did in his life then maybe you can use that as a jump off point.

I have appointed civil Town governors to all towns. No joy.

Some very good points made. I cannot see how simply giving an honour point for every town taken can not be given. It seems to count against you, the more money you spend on military matters compared to civic matters. Honour should be there for war games as well.

Honor is how you are percived by your peers/nobles. You must also act within your social standing/class/country expectations/religous choice.

Some one though it fine to send a female ambassador to Morocco, the sultan promptly took her as a gift for his haearem much to the annoyance for the King of france who had sent her (she was one of his favs) The moroccon player enjoyed it and gained much honor whilst King louis did not for such a foolish action! (not historical)

So although you are not tied to historical accuracy going out too far will hurt your honor, some things are just not on!

Siding with a relgous enemy may hurt as well even if you do well in battle, being too harsh on a noble for what ever reason or raising the taxes of the nobles/church will drop your honor....

there is no exact science but venture too far beyond what was expected in that era and be prepared to take a hit maybe even a big one if it is too far out of the historical norm for you/yor position.....

How important is Honour? Obviously a very low honour score means internal revolt and mutiny becomes more likely. Small states can also increase their estate income with a high honour score, but to a rich large state the extra income is just a drop in the ocean.
If one player has a 300,000 man army and a honour score of 15 and his opponents has a 100,000 man army and an honour score of 50, is higher honour going to counteract being outnumbered 3 to 1?
Is the Army likely to fight harder if the ruler is popular and well respected by the nobility or does it make no difference.
As stated by others certain positions seem to have a built in advantage when it comes to honour, the HRE for instance.

there is no biult in advantage, it is because it is not always obvious what the country you are playing key bit is. All the HRE has to do is bash Prussia for honour. France has to be the Glorie du Roi, The pope well being the Pope etc you get my drift.....

The only reason I care about Honour (with Rozwi) is the personal wealth income it provides - which I need to use to prop up the Rozwi state treasury!

###

High honours doesn't benefit how many units fight for you in a turn. So unless there's a hidden rule method that influences military outcomes, and used by the GM when working out the results of 'actions', there's, probably, no link between Honour and the Military anymore.
Unless I'm wrong, and have overlooked something in the rules?

###

All positions will have their easy means to score honour points. Its just some are easier to realise what they are than others. At the end of the day, all Honour is is the result of your character's actions. What the player's actual representative in the game does, says, gives, donates, loves, argues against, plays, fights, buys, whatever a player states his character is doing that turn if it is suitably honourable (or dishonourable if he's a pirate) and fitting of admiration of other ladies and gentlemen who are members of his social circle.  

If you are an Italian Roman Catholic noble, if you donate to the Church or sponsor a nearby convent or monastery, pay for the renovation of a church, then your Honour will go up should you continue to be pious and devout over a couple of turns. (this is what I did when playing the Duke of Savoy)

If you are Blackbeard the Pirate, then if you do dastardly things like pick fights with British military officers in the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, your Honour will increase. (again, something I did when playing Blackbeard). I also bought a big mansion at Kingston, filled it with women (payed for a Harem) and spent many a month occupied within.

If you are the Changamire of the Rozwi, if you feast and entertain your noble chiefs, are generous of your own cattle herd and personally active with the Rozwi Army, your Honour will increase. (I know this, as this is what I am doing now in Game 10)

It is all about what you have your own, personal character in the game do. If you also write an article for the newspaper, you stand a better chance of earning Honour points. It doesn't have to be a long written piece, maybe just a couple of sentences saying that your character is enjoying himself with his family, going to church each week and donating alms to the poor. Maybe include that he stopped the procession of state carriage on the journey, allowed a member of his guard to bring a supplicant to speak to him, and listened to what the poor soul had to say. Including such a personal touch (fitting how the character attributes you want your in-game representative to display) will help grow their personality and make it easier to do further honourable actions that will allow Honour to be scored on other occasions.

Having your character make a speech concerning a current event in the game, or focusing on a historic enemy of their state, should see Honour grow fast - but, it will also alter how other player's will see your character. If your character is English and starts to make speeches about how he believes all Scots are traitors waiting to rebel, then you can be assured that Scotland and it's people will react to what you have said - but this allows for further actions and Honour scoring opportunities.

Honour is just, basically, role-playing. If you don't role play your character, you won't earn Honour. Your game position won't be any worse for not role-playing, except your Personal Wealth won't increase each year (should your Honour rise) and if you need that money to help pay annual upkeep (like I do with Rozwi) then you're missing an opportunity to make money.

>>Honour is just, basically, role-playing. If you don't role play your character, you won't earn Honour. Your game position won't be any worse for not role-playing, except your Personal Wealth won't increase each year (should your Honour rise) and if you need that money to help pay annual upkeep (like I do with Rozwi) then you're missing an opportunity to make money.<<

I think this is right on the money.

I see no evidence that honour is a hidden force multiplier for your military. Having a low honour can be a minus, but a higher honour isn't a secret bonus. You don't have to get honour, you can run your position fine without it. It's a bonus. (if it does add in military, it isn't a very significant add.)

I think at some earlier point in the game, before my time, it featured more heavily because Richard thought it was necessary to keep people playing in period. I think we all do a pretty good job of that these days, so I think its importance as a necessary tool to enforce in-period actions has diminished.

I think the honour standings are a hold-over from that, and very easy to calculate so they've stayed.

Honor is also a bench mark for those who want to measure how well they think they are doing...

Kingmaker wrote:Honor is also a bench mark for those who want to measure how well they think they are doing...

No it's not. If I take 20 towns in battle and one of my neighbours still has what he started with but his honour score is four times that of mine. How is he doing better than me.? Honour tells him he is, but in reality I could take him out anytime I wished. ( presuming we started with roughly equal positions.).

Honour is simply a measure of how well you play the political game. Which is why I think the wargamer should be better represented by honour. Much harder for a wargamer to get it than a political player.

That's my belief anyway.

Honour is possibly A benchmark (which we're giving more importance to than it probably warrants - due to it being shown on the front page of each newspaper). But, ultimately, it only shows one aspect of the game that players can measure their play against others.

I do agree with jamesbond007. And like Deacon says when he mentions Sid Meir's Civilization games, possibly it would be a more well-rounded method of showing 'who is winning' (if there is such a thing?) to score players/positions on multiple categories.  

* Personal Honour
* Economic Health
* Military Reputation
* Farming Success
* Culture & the Arts

(those are just quick ideas, hopefully encompassing the variations of style of play players do/have followed.) Yes, in the real world countries can see what other's economies are like, and how a neighbour's farming is doing, but would knowing all the above things just lead to players searching for the weakest neighbour and starting a war? Where, when it was secret and not scored, players played more historically and more peaceful. [unless they employed spies to find out the information!]

But then it raises the question; is TGOK a simulation, or a game?

Simulations, probably, shouldn't be seen as being a competition. But, as in life, we all need examples and achievements to measure ourselves against, be it personally, as a business, or a country.

If TGOK is a game, although open-ended and massively open to various interpretations of play, then ultimately there should be a method of being deemed the Winner when the game eventually does come to an end, be it through collapse or natural conclusion. And for that we need league tables to chart success.

However, I write all of the above just for the sake of discussion, really. I am very happy with how TGOK plays at present, and don't even think I can answer the question I myself put forward, above, is it a game or a simulation.

Anyway, whatever you all think on the subject, if you could just send Rozwi a great big gift (in Game 10) I'd be very much grateful

Deacon wrote:>>I see no evidence that honour is a hidden force multiplier for your military. Having a low honour can be a minus, but a higher honour isn't a secret bonus. You don't have to get honour, you can run your position fine without it. It's a bonus. (if it does add in military, it isn't a very significant add.)

Agreeing with the last sentence, but I think I have read somewhere that Honour does effect the morale of the military (and thus, perhaps, their effectiveness). Or did I dream that?

Apart from that, I think (as per the emerging consensus??!) that you "win" this game according to the target (s) you set yourself. My first experiment in playing was a small nation (Moldavia) and I set myself the target of achieving the top of the Honour-board in that game. But you might set yourself to be militarily, or territorially, or economically dominant, or to achieve the most rounded recreation of your nation. The beauty of the game is that we can all be winners, simultaneously (just by different criteria).

Since I have the PDF for rule book 7, some quotes:

>>If you want to
close an embassy on your territory, say so via your diplomatic
orders to AGEMA, thus avoiding trouble from your own
citizens/subjects! Note that it is considered good to give a
‘believable’ excuse for the closure at the time, rather than just
do it which isn’t seen as a terribly honourable thing to do
(and yes Honour does matter in this game!).<<

>>Your Honour gives
some indication of the opinion of your aristocrats (or equivalent
ruling class), while the commoners tend to care more
about how the economy is doing, and so are more likely to
get restless if your Economy score is low.<<

>>Your treasury’s balance can be in 'minus', representing unpaid bills. This will have a negative impact on Economic Health (EH), and if your EH or Honour is low enough unpaid troops or merchants and the like may desert, switch allegiance, or be vulnerable than usual to taking bribes.<<

>>Closing an embassy, either by the host or the state which
sent the embassy, should ideally be done while giving an
explanation as to why (otherwise it may be deemed to be a
dishonourable action).<<

>>3. If a signatory is accused of breaking a treaty that signatories nation will have a downward pressure on the Honour score until the matter is resolved by once again complying with the terms of
the treaty, or the treaty lapses. <<

>>The system also means players can, if their Honour score is high enough, choose to deliberately risk breaking the terms of a
treaty, calculating for example that it only has six months to run so how bad can the penalty in that time end up being? In
rare cases you might find that treaties you signed conflict, and you are forced to break the terms of one in order to follow the
terms of another. However, the general intention is to see players stick to treaties and to give them the knowledge that breaking
them (or for that matter falsely accusing someone) has consequences. If you have six months left to run on a treaty you
may think you can sustain six months of losing Honour at perhaps a point per turn, but what if other things are hitting your
Honour as well? The loss may end up being even greater, but that is a decision a player can make if he really wants to do so<<

>>Losing your existing personality is detrimental, and causes damage
over several months to your Honour score.<<

I find nothing in the current version of the rules that suggests that honour impacts your military in any way. It well might, but my conviction is that it only effects things if it is very low, or perhaps very high, and only marginally even then. Training, equipment, SL, etc are all going to be much larger factors.

I think this has changed over time, since I also remember more references from earlier versions of the rules (which I don't have in PDF so can't quickly scan for the references.) My guess is that Richard needed to, or felt he needed to, use the stick of honour more in the past than he does now. I think we players by the way we interact self-reinforce the expected norms.

The section in the rules on honour is worth a re-read, and to my point that having a low honour has impact, and a higher honour less, I'd point to this line from the Honour section:

>>If Honour ever reaches '1' you become exceedingly unpopular
and disliked intensely in High Society. Should you reach
the giddy heights of 10 or more, you can assume yourself to
be generally admired.<<

My personal read on this section of the rules is that as long as you're above 10, you're in good shape, don't sweat it. If you drop into the single digits, you are entering the yellow/red zone and should be careful.

All this adds up to reconfirming my view that having a low honour is bad, but that the benefits of having a high honour are far fewer. The rules do say personal income is 'loosely' tied to honour, but that's such small potatoes compared to state revenues it seems like not a good way to focus on your investment.

Personal feeling, is that we may sub-consciously all look at the list of honour on the news letter & see it as a way of keeping score, like a league table, it is a tool that can used by Richard to keep his players in line, with regards to treaties & in game,in period actions.

Maybe the fairly recent introduction of Trade areas tables will deflect some of the pressure away from honour as it will give players a new way to compare themselves.

Maybe a yearly list of army sizes could be introduced with categories like "Number of Sabres, Bayonets, Cannon" So people have another league table to climb, or maybe there should be a "stock market" section to let us see who has a booming economy.

All that said, the game works well as it is so we should be happy with what we have. Honour is a frustration that we simply need to live with. Only one player can top the list, whether that means they are the best player, have the biggest economy, are strategically the best placed, an amazing general all remains an open question.Fact is that player has found a way to impress a certain part of his playing position enough to warrant the position, & good luck to them.

Maybe a player can ask an advisor about the general feeling in their countries, this may well give a tentative feed back as to where you need to set your sights, or ask a religious leader, or leading financier. Get some feed back to allow you to develop your personalities personality. If you have a position with a religion or culture you have not grown up in then some research may turn up little gems of information that help you on your way, things that proved popular in your playing country, or events that mark it's development towards the modern day.

I can understand why, using JB007's remarkable performance in G8 in overrunning his neighbours, if you are playing a successful wargame in Glory, why you may not feel it is reflected in things like honour.

However I keep coming back to this idea that maybe warfare wasn't seen as honourable a lot of the time. The Nobles may not like it because of the effect it has on their estates for example. Yes, you as Monarch may order a war that sees you gain 20 towns, a million new subjects and a big pot of cash...but has it benefited your nobles? Do you reduce their taxes as a result of the extra income? Have their estates suffered because of the war? End of the day, do they see any benefited other than next time they buy a map of the homeland it's a bit bigger than it was on the old map?
Also though the common population's opinion isn't so significant in honour, it does a bit and again what benefits do they see? Again are their taxes lower as a result of the war? when you look at the lyrics of folk songs (the ones that are more from the period rather than more modern "hey nonny noll" type songs) they don't seem to see wars as being that great. Even if your village isn't part of the battlefield, the songs don't seem to suggest it was a good thing-there may be a bit at the start about how fine the husbands/fathers/sons/brothers looked as they marched off to war but either they don't come back or when they do, they are missing various bits of their bodies.

I also wonder if nobles don't really like to see militarily successful monarchs. Nobles have a certain power in a nation, a militarily successful monarch upsets that power and is almost certain to reduce it. Maybe if you find an ingame way to reward your nobles with the spoils of the conquest (reduce taxes? grant them new estates in the conquered lands?) you might find their view changes and honour could benefit.

I suspect the way forward, as others have suggested, is a (annual?) table of military prestige though I struggle to come up with a practical way for it to work. It can't simply be whose military is the biggest, or has the highest quality of drill, most cannon or whatever. Outright conquest is one way of measuring it but it would need to be tempered with a degree of performance-would a conquest of 20 towns where you lost, say, 50% of your original forces be more successful than a conquest of 5 towns and 10% losses.

Maybe a way for military players to see the fruits of their labours would be an annual list of battles & sieges fought in a game year, with a note on numbers involved & winners/ losers Commanders involved, may not be a league table but it will give some satisfaction that your hard work as a military commander isn't being ignored.

For example:-
Battle of St Peters Square
Between:- Jacobites (100 men) & Vatican Swiss Guard ( 150men & 1 goat) Casualties = 0 but one very traumatised goat

something of that ilk would allow generals to build reputations in game, maybe.

My (fairly early) rule book say's that that X number of units will fight at full effect for every honour point you have and this figure varied between different positions:

"Forces acting at full ability per honour point:

England or Venice: 6 units or 20 Ships
France: 15 units or 10 Ships
Austria: 13 Units or 3 Ships
Prussia: 12Units or 2 Ships
Other States 10 Units or ships
Independent pirates are exempt

This score generally only matters for troops who actually join battle during a game turn, so for example if you play Austria and have 40 Units fighting in battle, you need an Honour Score of 4 to assure all do so properly (but in this case if the score was 3, only 1 unit would fight below normal ability).

Not sure if this rule is still in force but clearly for most players, most of the time its not going to be an issue for example 30 Galley's of a Highly Honourable Ottoman Sultan - Honour Score 20 take on 60 Galleys of the dastardly and Piractical Doge of Venice - Honour Score 3.  Both sides still have enough honour for all of their units to fight at full effect and the honourable Ottomans are probably going to get crushed by weight of numbers.

If the honour scores/numbers were the other way around it would be a more even fight with 30 Ottoman Galleys taking on 30 Venetian Galleys at full effect while another 30 Ottoman Galleys lost the wind, got lost in the dark, or were delayed by their commander who hopes his boss gets killed by the Venetians and he can take his job.

If this rule or something like it is still in place it would seem to be an issue for:

- Players with a very low honour score

- Austrian & Prussian players who want to build a large Navy or Venetian & English Players who want to build large armies.  Notes in rules said this was designed to encourage Historic Play........England & Venice being Naval Powers who were anti large professional armies.  While Prussia and Austria were land powers who's Nobility/Officers had no Naval Tradition.  Land lubbers and proud of it!

- Players with using huge armies esp in terms of units.........mostly this is going to be Eastern Armies like Russia, Ottomans, Persia and Moghuls with a high percentage of Cavalry.  Again this would seem to reflect historical preformance.........Hard fighting by large Ottoman & Indian Armies tended to be done by the Guard Units & the Noble Cavalry while much of the rest of the Army was poor to rabble standard handy for for the donkey work on campaign of digging, looting the Country Side, fetching water and not much else.

My view is that while Sickness Level reflects the physical Condition of troops and can be managed by rest & repair ......Honour reflects your ability to inspire troops to preform their best and can also be managed.  Generally if you use limit number of engaged forces to match your honour score your officers professional pride will do the job without any problems but If you try and use all of your troops at the same time in a massive campaign or battle - like in the current massive Moghul Offensive in G10 some will screw up ie march into a town without outriders and get ambushed.

Your troops screwing up due lack of honour (or other reasons) tends to be a problem against NPC foes who do not seem to have "honour" issues.  Against player foes take comfort from Ottoman therory that 30 Fully effective units beat 40 fully effective ones after they have fought their way through two lines of 60 not very effective ones.  And the Bailey theory that if your honour is higher than the foe even more of their troops are going to screw up than yours.  When your regular foes are the Venetian Navy & Austrian Army this theory may need a bit of work.

The advantage for Eastern Commanders is that you can be fairly sure who the waste of space on the Battle Field are going to be ie Moghul Foot, Cossacks, Light Cavalry Raiders only here for the loot.  And who are going to fight......ie Winged Hussars, Saphi of the Porte etc.  With Western Armies who are going to screw up and how is more problomatic.  G7 English Jacobite Command is currently muttering nasty things not about cowardly fence sitters but about insanely brave types..................Ok who ordered the headlong charge acoss a bog into field works and dug in foot and cannon?.......who for some reason have none of the professional skill and knowledge of the English Navy.

Honour rules in play?  Or fact that Jacobite Foot have been drinking Scotch while the Red Division have been drinking nothing but best quality Vintage Spanish Wine??????

Think the honour rules explain the long term plans of the Royal Steward of Poland - A French Army of say 70,000 Infantry 80 Cannon and 15,000 Horse ie 210 Units only needs 14 Honour points to fight at full effect.  A Polish Army of 80,000 men is going to be at least half cavalry say 45,000 horse (300 Squ) & 35,000 Foot (50 Battalions) & 10 Battaries of Artillery needing 36 Honour points.  On 14 honour points the Artillery, The Winged Hussars & the Royal Stewards Regt of Foot follow him while 2/3 of the Army sulk, get drunk etc, etc.

But if the Royal Steward continues to go hunting with every Noble in Poland, Kiss Babies & build Churches come the glorious day the elderly and beloved Steward parades the Royal Banner and the Banners of every Saint in Poland before the host and leads them into a charge which stamps Russian/Ottoman/Swedish Army (delete as required) into the mud!  

Think I agree with James Bond these rules are back to front.....you need Honour to win glorious Victories, rather than getting honour from Glorious Victories!

The latest rules (have them after pets ate my original early set) don't make any mention of the link between honour and army/fleet size.

I wonder if these days the role that honour use to perform in regards army/fleet size (other than encouraging historical play, which I think we all do) is now done by general staffs, army HQs, drill, cruisers as messenger ships etc. Using JB007 in G8 again (do you get I'm impressed by his military success there), i wonder if he has things like general staff et al...whereas his counterparts in G10 maybe didn't?

Being historically accurate isn't always popular with the nobility. In game 8, I freed the Serfs as that particular monarch did historically and my honour still dropped by 3.
How high can honour go?
Economic health seems to go to 9 or 10.
I managed to get my honour up to 50 by acting in historically manner and sticking to a clear political line. Slanging off distant foreign potinates also seems to help.