Lands of Classic Castle - Discussion Thread

[richardanthonyc]

Interesting as history can be, perhaps you could continue this discussion in the Medieval Life subforum?

Indeed, tis the proper forum for it, my apologies

[Mattiusxavier]

Just out of curiosity. I'm assuming that the King's Guard is primarily the Royal Knights correct? Also just wondering, can we make Moc's with the King's guard present, but not affliated to a particular faction?

[AK_Brickster]

I think it's OK to build a MOC where the King's Guard are present, provided they are not engaging in activities that affect the story. Ie, they can be guarding an outpost, but shouldn't be shown beating peasants or something like that.
And yes, they "own" the Royal Knights Sigil. Neither you nor your troops should carry that crest.

[sir aleks the bold]

since everything is starting to go together, maybe its time each faction designs a planned city and starts to fill it with shops and house's

[mencot]

, but shouldn't be shown beating peasants or something like that.

What isn´t that the kings guard do, always in fantasy cartoons they are the bad guys
Heehehe sorry about that, good that we can use them a bit, guarding something etc.

[Sir Bragallot]

Just out of curiosity. I'm assuming that the King's Guard is primarily the Royal Knights correct? Also just wondering, can we make Moc's with the King's guard present, but not affliated to a particular faction?

Unfortunately they are, they would look great with Loreos' colour scheme and I have a lot of their stuff, we're really cutting our numbers in half by deciding this is the royal sigil Why not let the blue lions (KK I, King Leo and consorts) be the royals, whyyyy?

[Mattiusxavier]

Unfortunately they are, they would look great with Loreos' colour scheme and I have a lot of their stuff, we're really cutting our numbers in half by deciding this is the royal sigil Why not let the blue lions (KK I, King Leo and consorts) be the royals, whyyyy?

I completely agree. It should have been the King Leo sigil instead as the other sigil is much more common and I have 30+ of them just begging with shields and all to be put into the ranks...but since it was settled upon to have the Crown represented by this...I can just use them as observers from the Crown.

Although, I'm thinking we should still consider putting that to a vote to all members as the colour scheme does work really well for Loreos.

As for the not beating the peasants...what about the King's Guard being caught attacking faction troops? You know...to uphold the King's Justice.

[mencot]

As for the not beating the peasants...what about the King's Guard being caught attacking faction troops? You know...to uphold the King's Justice.

Altough they are a elite guard and these troops have to be hired best men from the factions who have wanted to welcome royal guards because the king doesn't have any land. I don't think they would dare to attack others but to uphold the law and order is a diffrent thing.

[Sir Bragallot]

If you want to use them in a fight I believe it would best be in a fight against Outlaws, as the King attacking one of the Provincial factions would have rather dramatic results, I believe

And yeah, the blue king would have been a better choice because his men all wear armour instead of sigils so you're basically only saying people can't use the King fig or their shields which isn't very limiting as opposed to the Royal Knights... I can still make a sizeable Loreesi force if I have to (if I get creative with the shields) though, and while the Royal Knights' added numbers (I have quite a few of them) would be welcome I could settle for feeling proud they are the faction that holds the King of LCC (they're my favourite castle faction!). Crusaders and Kingdoms Lions do work well together, in fact I was already using them together for Brikwars.

[AK_Brickster]

There has been some discussion about mapping out specific estates and "claiming" individual plots within cities. I would like to discourage this, as it will limit people's ability to be creative down the road.
For example, by declaring that your MOC occupies a certain geographic location, you limit other people's ability to build a MOC there in the future. Eventually, the entire land will be laid out in a very specific way, and people will be limited in what/where they can build.

I think that it is best to lay out geographic locations and cities, and from there be vague about exaclty where your MOC is located. Instead of saying that your fortress is located at coordinates x, y, z, consider saying that it "guards the pass to the south of the city."

What are people's thoughts on this?


As for the sigils, whichever one you choose, someone is going to lose the ability to use it. If you used the KKI "King Leo" sigil, that would be one that Garheim couldn't use, since it's in their color scheme. Tough to make everyone happy, unfortunately

[Elderon]

Depends on what you're building I think. If you're building a gatehouse of a certain city you have to give it a location, otherwise a city would have a gatehouse every few feet. I think the maps are big enough for everyone to have his own city or at least part of a city to build according to your own architectural preferences, in compliance with faction rules ofcourse. I also think that it gives another challenge for when your hero travels to another city, to match the architecture of your fellow builders and maybe even some characters. I don't think it will be such a big problem. Although I do think the capital should be without owner.

And the sigil-dilemma is indeed tricky... Not sure how this can be solved. Only by using custom decal sigil I think. But I don't like using those...

[AK_Brickster]

But if you don't specify where the gatehouse is, you can just say it's a gatehouse of that city, which leaves it open ended. If you specify, then after a couple of people build gatehouses, they're basically "used up" and can't be built anymore.
I'm totally fine with people creating their own stories that are as detailed as they want, but the 3 or 4 largest cities in the faction should be left open to be available to everyone, however they wish to build it.

[wobnam]

I like the abstract placement concept. As we have already discussed in several threads: If the maps are too detailed they will eventually fill up, rendering participation and expansion difficult, especially for new members.

I'm not a fan of "each member having his own city" either. For one thing, it's unfair to the members who will join LCC later: Cities are huge and their placement essential to basically everything that happens in the story. We can't just add a large city somewhere when a new member joins.

The task presented was to place and name 2-3 big cities. I think we should stick to that.

[FirstInfantry]

I can still make a sizeable Loreesi force if I have to (if I get creative with the shields)

If you don't mind using 3rd party parts, check my photostream. I have a shield design that is one plate thick and can be built in any color scheme.

As for the sigils, whichever one you choose, someone is going to lose the ability to use it. If you used the KKI "King Leo" sigil, that would be one that Garheim couldn't use, since it's in their color scheme. Tough to make everyone happy, unfortunately

The Danju wolf shield from the Knights Kingdom fits no color scheme (purple/yellow). Could these be used? Another option would be plain grey shields, available in both the ovoid and triangular shields. A force of sigil-less knights denoting no loyalties to anyone but the king.

[Elderon]

But if you don't specify where the gatehouse is, you can just say it's a gatehouse of that city, which leaves it open ended. If you specify, then after a couple of people build gatehouses, they're basically "used up" and can't be built anymore.

Well doesn't that hold the same problems as planning in advance? You'll run out of shops and gatehouses and markets eventually... I'm not saying that you should map out entire cities in advance, but I think it might be considered that some people want their own architectural designs as part of a certain city. And not everybody builds the same, so a lot of cities would have very different buildings. Take the gatehouse for example, one can assume that a citywall is pretty much built in once (with some reconstructing after attacks added in later perhaps) so if someone builds with different colors (like me for instance) it is kind of weird if someone else makes a piece of wall with another gatehouse entirely with bley bricks. Do you understand what I mean?
I totally agree that everyone should be able to build a building in every city of their choosing, I actually think that should be part of the game. And I'm not saying this because I want my character to live in a certain city or something, my story actually takes him far from home and on adventures that do not even allow him to be home.

I'm totally fine with people creating their own stories that are as detailed as they want, but the 3 or 4 largest cities in the faction should be left open to be available to everyone, however they wish to build it.

I kinda agree with that, but as mentioned before it would look a bit weird seeing so much cities with so much difference.

I like the abstract placement concept. As we have already discussed in several threads: If the maps are too detailed they will eventually fill up, rendering participation and expansion difficult, especially for new members.

I'm not a fan of "each member having his own city" either. For one thing, it's unfair to the members who will join LCC later: Cities are huge and their placement essential to basically everything that happens in the story. We can't just add a large city somewhere when a new member joins.

The task presented was to place and name 2-3 big cities. I think we should stick to that.

No maybe not a large city everywhere but that is not really nescessary. I think we should just stick to three large cities and the capital. But smaller cities could (emphasis on could) be added later. Just how I envisioned things.