Currently there is a possibility to wipe out  not only a crew or a district but even an entire city. First wave killing off all the major figures including CLs and hands while that city has no idea what is about to happen, and then leaderless people don't know what to do so some just fall down and die during the second wave, some turn their cloak and very few set up their own HQ to kill a few bystanders before getting killed themselves. the latest example of this happened in DT. I consider this a loop hole through the mechanism, and one that should be fixed.

I feel this solution can aptly help on that regard. and let's not forget death of a CL doesn't just harm one or two people. there is an entire infrastructure that works under that CL, so, death of a CL will adversely affect all Made Men, or it SHOULD in theory, that's what being a part of that family means. Jaded i think even you would say that if you liked the leadership of your CL (manifested by choosing Loyal as Orsik suggested) you would choose to save that CL so that you would have a family to come back to after being shot.

A CL who is a good leader and does his job well and with all his heart deserves a long and prosperous reign

Yet at the same time you are protecting the CLs that maybe shouldn't be a CL. This is a natural choice down the road for removal but this would make it damn near impossible.

As Squishy pointed out better than I have, this won't help things change over as they should. Instead it will help create things into a stalemate for an even larger amount of time.

Sure I will protect my leader and I do so willingly. I am not forced into it by the fact that I am loyal. I won't have a fear that some day some rogue may want to kill my leader and instead all my hard work goes down the drain because I am loyal.

This really benefits the CLs and not everyone.  This doesn't make wars better. You can still have all of that if that city has enough hitters to just take out the Made Men first.

So no, you can't use my words against me in this case. This makes killing CLs almost impossible. I don't like it. I like change. I don't like staleness for years upon years.

CLs do live long lives already. Some make it to 1 year, others to 2. It is possible for CLs to remain alive now. So you can't use that as an excuse for this. This only hurts those that aren't in bold. I rather see more good come out of it then everyone's death.

While I am not a fan of the fact we have ship jumpers. It is a decision the leaders make themselves and they suffer the consequences of it later on.

In good conscience I cannot promote an idea that only helps a select few and not a majority. I just can't because it is wrong.

you have a point there and by your prospective i think i would agree. guess this comes down to a difference in that perspective and that's what makes these suggestion thread discussion useful.

nonetheless I feel like the idea Orsik came up with initially has room for serious debate and with proper adjustment it could actually be good for actual practice.

what we are looking for is some way to remove the possibility of easy one shot kills on the CL while not making it too easy for the CLs to remain there indefinitely.

Orsik suggested to make Royalty a risky thing for the made men but much more beneficial to the CL. but perhaps both the risk and the benefit suggested is too much.

how about say, BGs of a loyal member would protect the CL as well provided they are in the same city.

BGs I could live with. However, I am still not a fan of anything that protects a CL indefinitely.

neither Am I nor is anyone else for that matter. the thing is you can easily revoke your Loyalty. you like the CL so you would die for him (or let your BGs die) but after a while you dont wanna do that anymore so you revoke it.

who knows maybe you can even incite a rebellion against the CL and convince others to revoke their loyalty too.

BTW all "You"s said are generic you

Before I respond, can we please not get carried away here? There's no moral argument here; it's a fucking suggestion on a text-based Mafia RPG. I'm not making an appeal to ethics here, and neither should you. I'm not saying "it's just and right for leaders to die last in wars," I'm just offering a suggestion. Ok? Can we relax a bit on this and just talk about it? Christ.

This does not make removing a CL "damn near impossible." It would just require a group rather than one person (which I think should be the case).

Things may get stale, sure, but things have been stale for months (and upwards of a year) before? The game naturally stales out. Whether this change is implemented or not, we're probably going to see prolonged peace and accounts getting back up to pre-war BG and kill numbers. So I feel like your response is exaggerated because when a CL needs to die, this change isn't going to get in the way. And plus, this restricts what CLs can do in wartime; if they start shooting, they'll lose their protection. So while the CL may live longer, he can't do as much in wars.

I think this benefits non-CLs as well because it makes it advantageous for crew resources to be put towards training and protecting non-CL assets. In the current system, CLs will (and should, frankly) BG themselves up to cap before even considering their hands or hitters (and Made Men are oddly completely okay with this). After this change, the CL's BGs will be his/her second line of defense and would therefore be a wasted investment to put so much money into them. Plus, Mades can decide whether or not their CL is protected. So the change itself is built into what the Mades decide. Sure, most will be loyal, but the option is there nonetheless. I mean, if a CL is taking all the crew resources to BG himself up and nothing is getting put towards protecting or benefiting his hitters or Mades; he might meet an early end? The point is, this suggestion creates a balance where currently there is none. Mades don't do anything, all crew resources go to the CL, and the tallest ivory towers win wars (unless they get hit by a 1% from a prowack, which I think is an absurd way to win or lose a war).

I mean, once again, you've said it yourself. "You can still have all of that if that city has enough hitters to just take out the Made Men first." CLs aren't unkillable.

I stand by my suggestion. The negatives of this could easily be said about the game as it is now. The BG cap is too high which makes it impossible to kill CLs. Forts require too many kills to shoot proers. There's plenty of game features in place that are used almost solely to lengthen account cycles; and I think this feature could do that but also could result in more conflict. And that's predicated entirely on how the players respond to it. I think if crewleaders were less afraid of conflict, we'd see more exciting gameplay. And I honestly think this suggestion will make crewleaders less afraid of conflict.

I think the core of this idea is rooted in an assumption/prediction (perhaps erroneous) that wars would be fought with the 1% rather than against them; that leaders would be more willing to engage in conflict since they know they aren't going to die to a 1% prowack or get first-waved in their sleep.

Your idea compounds that even further, it means that you now need even MORE first wave gun power in order to stand a snowballs chance of surviving.  Underdogs really wont take the chance.  You would not attack knowing that you can't knock out their biggest gun until 3rd, 4th or 5th waves.

While that is correct; you can't eliminate the CL in the first wave, it also means no CLs can die first in war on the attacking side. So while you can't knock out their biggest gun until the 3rd, 4th, or 5th waves, your biggest guns are also not dying until then. And then it's still quite advantageous to be the first to shoot. So in the present system, there's no way I would start a war without being able to knock out their biggest gun for 3-5 waves because they could just turn around and pop our biggest guns. However, if CLs are protected, you have a build-up time to work through their men before having to deal with the target CL and the CL leading the attack would be safe just as long as the target; so the war would come down to whose men die first.

What if as a CL you can hang up the gun and and depend on your mades+ to get you through.  You choose between your gun, or your made+ defense.  You can stay behind the protection of your men where taking shots is impossible, or you can be on the front lines, sans protection, guns blazing.

(This is a permanent decision, not a war-by-war decision)

I disagree with this mostly because of the situation I'm in now; Madara and I don't have any Made Men yet, so we'd have to choose the former otherwise we'd be useless. And since your # of Made Men changes over time, I don't know how any CL can be expected to make that permanent decision early in their auth. Plus, I actually really like the balance I've struck with the revised suggestion; that CLs forfeit their protection when they shoot (this could be modified to make it more reasonable, obviously).

What if the scenario were an exchange of survival; you have a lower BG cap in exchange for this Made Man protection? So you either get to be an ivory tower with a mountain of BGs (like the current way), or you can give some up in exchange for protection from your Made Men (which would be absolute, unlike the BG mountain). That way, CLs can't get the best of both worlds; BG cap and MM protection. Though I suppose this information should be publicly visible; as it would function as pseudo-protection if it weren't.

You are assuming it would be another CL on the attacking side though. What if it is a bunch of people that got together because they didn't like the leadership? You are making it impossible for them. Either way you are still trying to make it impossible to remove CLs from power.

Not impossible, harder. It's quite clear that the leaders can (eventually) be killed with this change. I'm not really for or against this idea, but please don't say things like ''make it impossible to remove CLs from power'' or ''something that protects a CL indefinitely'' when that is clearly not part of the suggestion.

You also said:

Sure I will protect my leader and I do so willingly. I am not forced into it by the fact that I am loyal. I won't have a fear that some day some rogue may want to kill my leader and instead all my hard work goes down the drain because I am loyal.

Uh, they don't set yourself to ''loyal'' if you don't want to be ''forced'' to protect him? Also are you suggesting that a rogue has the capability to wipe all Made Men from a crew? And I think it's quite egocentric to only think of your hard work and bla bla, when you're there to provide and serve your leader. 

I like my CLs. Doesn't mean I like every other CL. Therefore when I talk, I am not talking specifically on where I am now but in the general sense.

Why do you insist on making it into a personal situation. It is a game suggestion for all of the game. I will speak on how I think on the game in a general sense. I can't imagine everyone who presses loyal to their CLs wants to know that they are so easily pushed aside and worth basically nothing but as a block to a bullet.

Family is meant to work together, all strengths. So to easily say that your family shouldn't think any more of their Mades then as a shield is ridiculous. Not inspiring of any respect.

im not really sure i understand this but it sounds like it will make wars more hard and will make them happen less because people are worried their members die. And when i think bout this it makes me think that if this happens then people will HAVE to die for a leader to die which sucks for those ppl cause you never know their situation or whether they would actually bother to fight for there leader. i dunno i just dont like the idea of making it a requirement to kill more people.

I don't think anyone will look at their Made Man as just a shield. It is still a position of trust (he/she could be disloyal after all). I don't see how granting more weight to the rank will decrease it's respectability and downgrade the level of cooperation in the family at all.

It's not something personal; you say something and I respond to that. We're on the forums after all, eh?

I don't know whether it has been implemented into the current form of the suggestion already; but I think there should be something to prevent CL's from quickly promoting a few people to Made Man for extra protection?
 

Let's be real Darkholme, Made Men (the target of this suggestion) should and usually do die with their leader already. If you aren't bothering to fight for your leader, you're a bad member.

yeah but maybe it is a shit leader and doesnt deserve fighting for. it goes both ways.

How is it granting more weight to the rank? The idea alone suggests they would just be used as a cannon fodder. I think the fact that they be active and probably present during a war to defend their leader would be granting them more weight then automatically having to take hits because your set to loyal.

I prefer to be present. Choices are something that should be allowed and when they are constantly being removed it makes the game less fun for people.

Then I would be very disturbed if you were a Made Man in that family.

Then you set yourself to "Disloyal" and go on your merry way when he bites the dust?