I don't really see how the death of disloyal Made Men are somehow more righteous or innocent than the death of Loyal ones? So no, I don't see it as a bad thing. I think the current system forces loyal Made Men to act overwhelmingly contrary to their interests in order to be loyal (carrying on a losing fight after the CL is dead); and that is a bad thing.

If Made Men want to die protecting their CL; that choice should be available to them. And I think that a Made Man being able to die protecting his CL is an option more important than a CL dying to a single shot. If a CL has men in his crew that are willing to fight and die for him; I don't really see why those motivations are outweighed by the interests of disloyal Made Men who want to jump ship?

Could there not be a counter to the loyal, with the disloyal, if something like this was introduced? For every disloyal MM and up the CL actually becomes easier to kill?

If this were feasible, it wouldn't be advantageous to simply ice ALL MM+, because if a leader is secretly despised by a few of the higher ranks, it's more beneficial for them to be alive at the time of taking a shot at a CL. From a strictly RP standpoint, it could be that members have been say, sabotaging defenses, distracting BGs, whatever.

For every loyal MM willing to jump in front of that bullet, one that is disloyal is willing to pull them out of the line of fire of the CL...

The longer someone has been loyal in a crew, the more likely they are to take the full brunt of a shot at a CL. The longer they have been disloyal, the more likely they are to say, distract the CL's BGs when a shot is fired.

If the effectiveness of the loyal/disloyal option built up over time, this wouldn't make it so that you HAVE to kill all the MM first to hit the CL.

This too retarded? I dunno.

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.

I don't completely dislike this idea, I don't know how many others would dig it though. But honestly, it makes sense. If you're surrounded by a crap ton of BGs, loyal mafioso and their BGS, stands to reason if you're harder to target, you find it harder to target shit, with all those damn people in the way.

Perhaps, along with my retarded suggestion above, the loyal/disloyal could work counter to your selection as far as your CL's gun goes. The more loyal the members the worse the CL's aim, the more disloyal the members, the better the aim, what with my (fantastic! :P) concept of disloyals distracting BGs.

I am strongly against this.  All of the good CLs you see before you should have already pre-arranged these scenarios with your fellow crewleaders of similar mind.  Pre-auths have already been given, scenarios figured out.  I really don't think dragging down the CLs who plan for the inevitable future and lumping them in with those who just fly by the seat of their pants is a good thing.  Those who don't have the foresight to have plans in motion to keep the family going should die out :/

I have to agree with the idea that a loyal family and the HQ they've built shouldn't immediately dissipate because the CL goes down. It doesn't make sense that a whole family loses all its protection and HQ immediately upon  the death of the leader.

Leadership auto transferring to the RH could work just fine. So long as that RH was loyal and some how wasn't taken out when/before the CL was. For it to trigger the RH would have needed to be RH for a set amount of time, they'd need to be loyal for that same time.  If the RH dies upon taking over the HQ, (within a set time frame, say 2 days, I dunno) pandemonium sets in, the crew is then homeless, the HQ is nothing but a few remaining fortifications if there are any.

Honestly I don't know how often it would happen that a RHM would auto take the HQ anyway. Planned take downs always include the RHM.

I am behind the aim for which Orsik started this thread, and believe it or not, I agree with pretty much everyone, you all make good points. but that all comes down to this: This is a solid suggestion that needs to be worked on to get a practical solution out of instead of just putting a reject mark on it because of the Possible side-effects.

To that end I will also give suggestion to further enhance the main suggestion as Whagwan just did with many more before him. the point of this suggestion being to try and make it harder and harder to one-shot kill a CL the more Loyal Made Men he has.

So let's go back to the title Loyalty -> REAL Loyalty. if you choose to be Loyal, you will take on the risk of saving your CL by putting your neck on the line. or by choosing Disloyal (as Whagwan said) deciding you'd rather see that CL dead.

now, this is what i think could happen if this idea is implemented:

You take a shot at a CL with a BG Equivalent of 150. your gun is 175 so theoretically your shot will kill the CL. But as it so happens there is a Loyal and active Made Man and the Made Man has a BG Equivalent of 50. so now if you take a shot the CL will be safe but the Made Man will die. if your gun was 215 instead of 175 you could have killed the CL, no problem.

Now lets add an extra level to that situation. the CL now has a BG Equivalent of 200 because of his Loyal Made Man. But unlucky for the CL, he has a Disloyal Made Man that has a gun of 35 which enhances the gun of the assassin. now the shooter has a 210 gun, and the CL has BG Equivalent of 200. the CL loses

Whagwan that first bit is brilliant. Rather than just use the total number of loyal Mades it could be the sum of the two. That way, Disloyal has as much power as Loyal in how the CL is protected. Plus, it means CLs would be very careful about who they promote because Disloyal Made Men could endanger them.

However, I'm still unsure how I feel about tampering with wack stats. Both Stan and Whagwan have suggested altering some of the game maths to fit this in (gun being stronger/weaker based on loyalty); and I'm hesitant to do that. One, because the math is intentionally hidden and therefore would be difficult for leaders to know what their gun strength is and two, because I don't think we need to complicate the wack feature unnecessarily. So with that in mind; I'll propose the following revisions:

When someone tries to shoot a Crewleader that has not shot at a non-IA non-NPC target recently (hasn't forfeited protection), the loyalties of his Made Men are tested. Loyal men will prevent the attack from occurring, disloyal men will sabotage/distract the loyal men from helping; ordered by rank. A loyal Consigliere is neutralized by a disloyal Consigliere, a loyal Boss is neutralized by a disloyal Boss or Consigliere, etc.

If the boss's loyal men outnumber his disloyal ones, the attack is prevented and the loyal men must be slain. If the boss's disloyal men outnumber his loyal ones, he falls prey to his men's treachery and has reduced defenses against the shot depending on the degree of the betrayal (as the disloyal men have sabotaged/distracted the CL's private security).

The point being; loyalty helps and disloyalty hurts. As far as explicit numbers, I think for each net disloyal members as a percentage of all members, the CL takes a .5% drop in BG efficacy. For example:

• CL has 10 Made Men (we'll just stick with one rank for simplicity's sake). 3 Loyal made men, 5 disloyal made men, 2 undecided, 10 non-made.
• Disloyal outnumber loyal; so CL takes a stat drop.
• 5 disloyal - 3 loyal = 2 surplus disloyal
• 2 surplus disloyal out of 20 total members = 10%
• CL's BG efficacy drops by 5% ((surplus disloyal Made Men / all members) / 2) (150 BGs would drop by 7.5 to 143 effective)
• CL is a shitty leader, pays the price for having disloyal men?

Thoughts?

Just to note; I think auto-transferring the HQ to the RH should be a separate suggestion as I don't see it playing a role in this one. If the CL dies, the RH would also be dead at this point (as a loyal Made). So I'd like to move past that.

A pretty cool (in my opinion) consequence of this revision is that; when trying to take down a crewleader, killing disloyal Mades is disadvantageous and actually makes it harder to remove the CL. So if you can differentiate between loyal and disloyal in your targets; you can remove the CL much easier.