Guilds

[Jurand of Cracow]

getting the guilds polished up. Having to really work through guild politics is a nice substitute for having merchants, giving a similar micromanagement "mini-challenge" for those who are into that, and also makes sense for the historical element of the mod

This is an interesting avenue - what do you have in mind? How would the guild system work?

Actually, I have a problem with the "historicity" of guilds as they're now. A couple of questions appear:
1. why just one guild per settlement?
2. why there's one "master" per faction? and one "HQ" per world?
3. what are "explorers" or "archers" guilds?
4. why from a Minor City level only?
5. why "master's" have faction-wide effects on such issues like public order?
(and perhaps many more questions, but 1,2,3 are the most tetchy)
Actually, I find the Hanseatic guild with just one level and available only to the regions around the Baltic Sea most convincing... (and I've been hesitating for some a while, some time ago I thought, for instance, that there should be more levels for die Hanse ;-).

[Kilo11]

This is an interesting avenue - what do you have in mind? How would the guild system work?

Actually, I have a problem with the "historicity" of guilds as they're now. A couple of questions appear:
1. why just one guild per settlement?
2. why there's one "master" per faction? and one "HQ" per world?
3. what are "explorers" or "archers" guilds?
4. why from a Minor City level only?
5. why "master's" have faction-wide effects on such issues like public order?

I haven't given it a lot of thought yet, and I am not a modder, which makes me hesitant to put forward any terribly solid suggestions (I know how difficult it can be to implement even seemingly "simple" things [from other programming things I have done previously] which makes me loathe to say "include this" or "fix that in these ways"), but here are some thougts I have:
In general, I do think the guild system needs a massive overhaul, which is why I'd like to see merchants stay until that is done (if not afterward as well). So all of your questions have, to my mind, a serious degree of merit, and would have to be addressed in any attempt to make guilds historically accurate and sensible. To the particulars:

1. There should definitely not be a limit to one per settlement. Especially as there are guilds which would have no impact on one another, or might even complement others. For example, if there is an archer's guild, this would seem to give a positive impetus for something like a woodcutters or carpenters guild, as these two groups would have an interest in the other's functioning. Similarly, explorers and merchants seem to be groups that would also be inclined towards helping each other out, lending credence to the idea that they'd want to see the other guild present as well. There are other pairs, like, for example, horsebreeders and carpenters, that seem to have no overlap and wouldn't impact each other in the least. On the other hand, there might be ones that act against each other. For example, the presence of a university (not a guild I know, but still) could (maybe should) have a negative impact on a theologians guild (or a positive impact, depending on how one views the church; don't want to rile anyone up ). Given these points, there ought to be a seriously thought through interplay between the guilds, but that requires first that there be a possibility for more than one per settlement. No idea how the guilds are built into the engine, and whether the limit of one per settlement can be lifted, but it would have to be.

2. These limits should also be lifted, but (this is a big but, so prepare yourself) there should be limits in the same spirit, as there wouldn't be two master's guilds in neighboring settlements. No guild that has achieved the status of "master" will want some uppity neighbor crowding in on that prestige, and as a result, they will try to put whatever limits they can in place, perhaps even resorting to sabotage, to ensure that. Again, not a modder, but an initial though I have is to maybe use the same hidden resource system that is employed for AoR mechanics to limit one "master" per area (i.e. if the hidden resource is "asia minor", then set a limit of one master per "asia minor"), and one HQ per faction. That also makes sense, as the whole point of a headquarters is to have a single centralized body for unifying decision-making and keeping records. Therefore, one HQ per faction is a sensible limit.

3. No good answer to this. I would say remove explorers, as this was usually more of an isolated affair, with explorers either going out on their own, or having particular voyages financed by a monarch or other backer. The guild also seems to have confusingly little impact in the game. For the archers guild I am less certain. I am inclined to say swap it out for something like a "hunters" guild, which would give a +1 experience bonus to archers recruited in that city, and maybe have a small health or pop bonus as well, as a result of encouraging/improving hunting in the region. Again though, something like a hunters guild would only make sense to have as a regional thing, without a masters or HQ level, and with only a bonus to the city that houses it, so no regional/global benefits. That again highlights the importance of carefully working through each guild.

4. I didn't know the guilds were limited to a minor city. That should just be dropped, or perhaps only kept for certain guilds that would require a larger population or larger buildings for them to make sense. So, a stonemasons guild wouldn't be present in any small settlements, because at that size, the only stone thing would be a church. However, as the city grows there will be more and more stone buildings, as well as stone walls, increasing the number of masons and the need for a guild to provide organization, regulation, and standards that contractors can judge specific masons by. But then again, if the area has a large stone resource, then that might justify the guild for any settlement size.
In general, I think that each guild should have a settlement size at which they are first available (sometimes this will be "Village", for things like a hunters guild) to represent that some require a more developed city before they would have any chance of existing. For those cases where there is something that would make the guild exist regardless of settlement size (i.e. a massive quarry in the area) the guild should just be there at the game start, which seems to present a possible workaround for the settlement size limitation. Not sure about how that would function in the game mechanics though.

5. Answer related to what I said in 2. above. I think that masters should be limited to one per larger geographic region, with the regions corresponding to the hidden resources used for AoR, and with this limitation, it would make sense for the masters guild to have the bnous be then region-wide, but not faction-wide. Not sure if this is possible, but it also seems like a masters guild should give the region-wide bonus to other factions with settlements in that region. For example, if Paris has a masters guild for stonemasons, which gives say a "stone buildings built 10% faster" bonus, then this should apply to Rheims as well, even if Rheims is controlled by the English. The idea is that there is a masters guild for the entire region of "France" which benefits that entire region, even if some cities are controlled by another sovereign other than the one who built that guild. This would also make sense as individual people could study with whatever masters they wanted, improving their individual crafting abilites, and then return to their home city with those skills in hand. The fact that my home has an English flag over the gatehouse and my place of learning has a French one over the gatehouse shouldn't pose a problem. I think an HQ should have faction-wide benefits though, as the main point of an HQ is for unfied standardization of core things, and this would apply to all guilds under the leadership of that HQ. Not sure that there should be any significant bonusese attached to HQs though, and I am doubtful as to how many guilds ought even to have an HQ. Certainly the merchants guild, the theologians guild makes sense too, spies and assassains could plausibly have an HQ, but most of the others wouldn't have the need or use for an HQ.

So, there are a lot of thoughts there, but I have not had much time to think over them well. So, if you find any to be utterly ridiculous, no worries. That's just an idea of first improvements to guilds, and some thoughts on how to make them interact and balance the interplay of them.

[Jurand of Cracow]

1. There should definitely not be a limit to one per settlement.

As far as I know - it cannot. One guild per town. You may change the concept - name it differently, not guilds - but not the mechanics. One guild per town, a possibility of three levels (this I'm not 100% sure, only 99%), upgrade on the basis of point collected due to different things. Eg. the presence of a university can have a negative impact.
Furthermore, there's a limit of the buildings in the game, and SSHIP is close to this limit, afaik.

2. These limits should also be lifted, but (this is a big but, so prepare yourself) there should be limits in the same spirit, as there wouldn't be two master's guilds in neighboring settlements.

Again, these are hardcoded limits. One master per faction. One HQ per world.
Thanks for your answer to point 5. To my mind, it does answer (a part) of the question "why one master per faction". As far as HQs are concerned - I'm even more skeptical, I don't find any plausibility in an HQ for the thieves...

4. I didn't know the guilds were limited to a minor city. That should just be dropped, or perhaps only kept for certain guilds that would require a larger population or larger buildings for them to make sense.

Actually, this is both easier mechanically (it's possible to lower requirements, they're moddable) and easier conceptually. Actually, I find a convincing case for having this minor city requirement - guilds were related to urban laws and a certain development of a settlement was necessary for the minimum number of artisans be present in a city - so it's reflected in the Minor City level. From the gameplay perspective, it's also ok, think: it makes you strive to get the higher level of a settlement.


All in all - only some changes can be made to the system. I assume very few people would vote for removal of the guilds. The question is: how can we make the guild system more "historical" given the limitations of the engine - and the limitations of the modders time.

[Kilo11]

One guild per town. You may change the concept - name it differently, not guilds - but not the mechanics. One guild per town, a possibility of three levels (this I'm not 100% sure, only 99%), upgrade on the basis of point collected due to different things. Furthermore, there's a limit of the buildings in the game, and SSHIP is close to this limit, afaik.

This is what I thought/was afraid of. I know there are lots of interesting and historically compelling things to be done with guilds, but I had a suspicion that the engine precludes a lot of effective tinkering in that area. I mean, the SSHIP team are sharp folks, and wouldn't have overlooked the relatively glaring points I made above, so I figured there must be hardcoded limitations they have run against. The building limit is also a problem, as it precludes the possibility of just swapping everything over into new structures (which anyway would be problematic, as the points system of the guilds is useful for their availability.

However, I do have some thoughts that could be (probably fairly simply) implemented for a number of the guilds (but not for all, and some of the more common/important ones would not fit this bill well). I can't remember well what all the guilds are that are in SSHIP, but I seem to recall one for almost every traditional artisanal profession (i.e. carpenters, bakers, masons, horsebreeders, etc.). It seems that for nearly all of these, the guild could be dropped as a separate structure, and the different levels of the guild could be added as simple structures in the building tree available after a certain prerequisite structure is built. For example, you build up to level 3 stables, then you train a certain number of horse units, then you maybe host a tournament (I don't know, insert your own preferred prereq's here), and then you are able to simply build a level 4 "stable", which is called Horsebreeders Guild, replaces the stable item, and instead of adding new recruitable units, simply allows for the same recruitment, but adds the guild bonus as well. In this way, many "guilds could be in a single city, and would represent stepping stones in the building tree, which also makes some historical sense as well. I mean, at some point it will be difficult to get your various craftsmen up to a higher level of smithing or horsebreeding or whatever without some guild which organizes the training of apprentices, regulates the standards of output, and ensures that only true masters can be allowed to build certain things. The guilds in effect acted as gatekeepers for higher qualities of production, and this could be easily folded into the building tree, and then the guilds could just be scrapped. Then those buildings that are in the "guild" system would be deleted entirely, to be replaced by the same buildings but in the tech tree. This would make sense for many of the local "production" based guilds.

However, I am not sure this type of method makes sense for things like merchants, theologians, or explorers guilds. I.e. those guilds which represent a more diffuse network of less tangible goods. That would have to be thought about more.

Again, these are hardcoded limits. One master per faction. One HQ per world.
Thanks for your answer to point 5. To my mind, it does answer (a part) of the question "why one master per faction". As far as HQs are concerned - I'm even more skeptical, I don't find any plausibility in an HQ for the thieves...

Not sure what makes most sense for dealing with the master and HQ levels of the guilds. One thought that comes to mind is to simply make them the last two levels of the building tree, for whatever building they belong with (in previous example, Horsebreeders Guild is incorporated into the stables building tree) but make the prereqs such that it is very difficult to have many of them. For example, it could be the case that a masters guild requires a huge city with totally upgraded stables and maybe has hosted a couple tournaments. If possible, I would also see if the AoR idea presented above could be added in as a restriction, as that would be good. Then for HQ, just make the prereqs such that someone would really have to concentrate on getting it possible to be built, but also add some element of chance, like the periodic "Host Event" things that pop up, making it necessary to host some events that would promote a horsebreeder guild. The downside of this is that it would make it theoretically possible for every settlement to have an HQ for every guild, but if the prereqs are set right (and some serious playtesting is done) it should be possible to make it balanced such that there is a reasonable historic progression.

Another thought that just struck me: have a hidden resource attached to particular settlements, and make it so an HQ requires that hidden resource. This would make it so an HQ could only be held by those who have the right place. For example, make a hidden resource of assassin in Damascus region, which would be required for the construction of an assassins HQ (supposing it makes sense to have an HQ for them; the point of the example is just to highlight how the hidden resources might function, not advocate having this or that guild be able to make HQs), and this would reflect the presence of the Nizari Ismailis in the area, which would allow for some higher level of assassin training. Just a first thought though; this would have to be more carefully explored.

Actually, this is both easier mechanically (it's possible to lower requirements, they're moddable) and easier conceptually. Actually, I find a convincing case for having this minor city requirement - guilds were related to urban laws and a certain development of a settlement was necessary for the minimum number of artisans be present in a city - so it's reflected in the Minor City level. From the gameplay perspective, it's also ok, think: it makes you strive to get the higher level of a settlement.

If it makes sense, then leave it. If the guilds are replaced in the way I've suggested (blending them into the normal building tree) then this would also be an easy way to limit which levels of guild can be built when, and set different base limits for different guilds, as far as that may be sensible. Maybe some guilds are only available once a prereq building is built that requires large city, then the guild is first available for large cities, for others it may be minor city or village, for some there may even be reason for them to be limited to huge cities. Attaching them to the normal building tree as steps in the ladder for the buildings already there would give a lot of flexibility and ease of modification for the mod team though, and seems worthy of serious consideration.

All in all - only some changes can be made to the system. I assume very few people would vote for removal of the guilds. The question is: how can we make the guild system more "historical" given the limitations of the engine - and the limitations of the modders time.

Here I've given an idea of how they might be changed, and in a way that doesn't, to my knowledge, go against the hard limits of the system. I imagine that this is also a rather simple way to incorporate those changes. However, I have not done modding myself, and defer to the better judgment of those who actually know what is possible. I'd be very interested to hear the thoughts of one of the team members, in particular Lifthrasir, who seems to be a strong advocate of the guilds system.

[Jurand of Cracow]

one for almost every traditional artisanal profession (i.e. carpenters, bakers, masons, horsebreeders, etc.). It seems that for nearly all of these, the guild could be dropped as a separate structure, and the different levels of the guild could be added as simple structures in the building tree available after a certain prerequisite structure is built

It's why I had mentioned that we're close to the buildings' limit (500). No room for many more buildings (perhaps for few, yes, but I haven't checked it), perhaps only a few guilds an be added.

For example, you build up to level 3 stables, then you train a certain number of horse units, then you maybe host a tournament (I don't know, insert your own preferred prereq's here), and then you are able to simply build a level 4 "stable", which is called Horsebreeders Guild, replaces the stable item, and instead of adding new recruitable units, simply allows for the same recruitment, but adds the guild bonus as well. In this way, many "guilds could be in a single city, and would represent stepping stones in the building tree, which also makes some historical sense as well. I mean, at some point it will be difficult to get your various craftsmen up to a higher level of smithing or horsebreeding or whatever without some guild which organizes the training of apprentices, regulates the standards of output, and ensures that only true masters can be allowed to build certain things. The guilds in effect acted as gatekeepers for higher qualities of production, and this could be easily folded into the building tree, and then the guilds could just be scrapped. Then those buildings that are in the "guild" system would be deleted entirely, to be replaced by the same buildings but in the tech tree. This would make sense for many of the local "production" based guilds.

Quite interesting. I'd love to find a modder who would do a tremendous job of creating such a system. You need RollingWave probably, but he's not active anymore (and he was part of the Titanium team). And even him in the HURB didn't dare to make such deep changes.
I mean: not realistic to implement due to the lack of modders' time. If we want to change something, it should be pretty simple.
Furthermore, the guild system (with points collected for some actions/events) is a quite interesting one and it's potential should be tapped, I think.

However, I am not sure this type of method makes sense for things like merchants, theologians, or explorers guilds. I.e. those guilds which represent a more diffuse network of less tangible goods. That would have to be thought about more.

My question is: what exactly "Theologians guild" represent from the history? In my games, I like to have just one such guild to get better priests. This is the only reason to have it for me (for the merchants it's to get better merchants, I employ them in numbers, perhaps exactly as you do). So maybe it should be called "Bookmakers guild" (was such a guild in history?) It would then make sense for such a guild to help to produce better priests...

[Kilo11]

It's why I had mentioned that we're close to the buildings' limit (500). No room for many more buildings (perhaps for few, yes, but I haven't checked it), perhaps only a few guilds an be added.

Knowing that limit is important. It would also be helpful to know if there are any other buildings planned for future releases, so that I can have an idea of what could be added, what needs to be swapped with something else. As far as I can see though, I think that the best way to "simply" make the guilds work is to delete whatever in the files makes them a "guild" as opposed to just being a regular building, and then make changes on them as standard structures, but perhaps with really odd prereqs. The prereqs can then be the way to make them function in game similar to how the guilds function now, without making it so only one per settlement is possible.

The guild system (with points collected for some actions/events) is a quite interesting one and it's potential should be tapped, I think.

I agree that the points are interesting and can be used in-game in a variety of clever ways. My concern is whether or not that can be kept while making it possible to build multiple guilds per settlement. I don't know how the guild mechanics function, or even where they are located (if you know and could tell me, I'd appreciate it, and then I'll see what seems possible there myself, before making further suggestions), but if the one per settlement element is not changeable, then guilds have to be changed to regular structures. There is simply no other good way to do it.

However, all in all, I think the whole idea of guilds needs to be rethought a bit. I have been reading up on some recent scholarship about medieval guilds, and it seems that they are functioning in the game in a way that does not really make any historical sense (not even considering all the problems we've discussed). I will read more over the next couple days to get a firmer idea, but as of now, I think the whole thing needs a careful re-evaluation.

P.s. I wonder if NavajoJoe would mind maybe moving everything after post #77 from JoC to a new thread entitled "Guilds"? He and I have moved far off the topic of merchants, and since guilds need so much work anyway, it would be fruitful I think to have a thread discussing just that. Thanks!

[tmodelsk]

Kilo11 > 1. There should definitely not be a limit to one per settlement.
As far as I know - it cannot. One guild per town. You may change the concept - name it differently, not guilds - but not the mechanics. One guild per town, a possibility of three levels (this I'm not 100% sure, only 99%), upgrade on the basis of point collected due to different things. Eg. the presence of a university can have a negative impact.
Furthermore, there's a limit of the buildings in the game, and SSHIP is close to this limit, afaik.

Kilo11 > 2. These limits should also be lifted, but (this is a big but, so prepare yourself) there should be limits in the same spirit, as there wouldn't be two master's guilds in neighboring settlements.
Again, these are hardcoded limits. One master per faction. One HQ per world.
Thanks for your answer to point 5. To my mind, it does answer (a part) of the question "why one master per faction". As far as HQs are concerned - I'm even more skeptical, I don't find any plausibility in an HQ for the thieves...

There're some other possibilities but requires heavy coding, new script monitors (so little little slower end turn time with each monitor).
For some guilds / guild buildings we can throw away hardcoded MTW2 guild system & create something from scratch via campaign script monitors and event counters.

For example: I've been looking through EBII campaign scripts and I saw something 'similar', some approximate example (I'm 'paraphrasing' what I've seen in their code):
.

• they're counting particular faction minor and large battles.
• after some amount of battles (some counter value is exceeded) they're setting up some event counter like 'XXX_military_reform' to 1
  And XXX_military_reform counter enables to construct some new unique buildings or train some new troops.

In EBII script I saw a few of such examples for some factions, not only for battle events.

If we can 'catch' required events in campaign script (like ex: merchant recruited, market building created, bank created etc) then we can 'sum it up' - similar to guild points system, and then at some point set some event counters which will enable particular buildings - and then those 'guild buildings' can be build on every settlement and two of such 'new guilds buildings' in the same settlement.
Of course there're things (game events) that are in current guild system that we won't 'catch'.
The most hard thing is to 'catch' required events in campaign script and setting particular 'milestone' event counters like mentioned 'XXX_military_reform'.
Of course those 'milestone' events can be individual per faction (like in EBII).

But such custom solutions requires heavy amount of time & effort & testing.
I know what I'm talking about, because I've created already a few heavy 'coding & monitor' solutions (1 2 3 4 etc)

Maybe someone who knows EBII could write what 'magic' EBII is capable of.
Or maybe there's some EBII user guide, so the 'concept' folks (Lifth, JoC, Kilo etc) can approximately have idea what is possible and what is not.

Similar - TATW is also a 'gold mine' of ideas of such custom solutions.

[Kilo11]

Tmodelsk, you are on the money there! The background scripting of EBII is what I have had in mind in much of what I've posted, but alas, I have very little idea of how to do that, which is why I am loathe to simply say "Do this.", as I know it is likely a mountain of work which I would hate to push onto someone else. That is the ideal, but until there are more modders (a problem JoC has pointed out a few times now) I will try to figure out "simple" solutions that can be implemented on the fly, while we await a few good modders to get the proper solutions in there.

However, it's late here, and I've got to get myself into bed, or I'll be of no use in the morning. I will keep thinking about the guilds, and what can and cannot be easily done, and will hopefully have an in-depth post with suggestions sometime over the next couple days. I have already a number of scholarly pieces on medieval guilds to get the ball rolling, and am sorting out some broad thoughts and how to implement them. Until then, see if you can wrangle an EBII modder to help the cause!

[Lifthrasir]

I think that we should forget guilds for anything related to religions. As far as I know, there were no such "religious guilds". That point should be related to religious buildings or orders but not to guilds.
Also, for Western Europe, there were basically 2 main categories for Guilds: merchant guilds and craftmen guilds, each of them subdivided in many branches. These 2 categories were in "competition", the merchand guilds selling the raw materials at high price and buying the finished product at low price. It worked the other way for craftmen of course. Hence, creation of tension and unrest, even riot in some cases.
But I have no idea how it works for Muslim factions or Eastern European one

[Alavaria]

Thankfully, current Theologian Guilds will immediately work for the other side if taken over by someone of another religion. Odd that...

[Jurand of Cracow]

I think that we should forget guilds for anything related to religions. As far as I know, there were no such "religious guilds". That point should be related to religious buildings or orders but not to guilds.

I agree with it. However, do you know Lifth if it's feasible to make a building providing bonus of Piety of the new spawned priests? This is the main role of the theologians' guild, at the moment. (I mean: codewise - I can't see anything related neither in the EDB nor in the EDG) .

For instance: it'd be better to make the quality of a Merchant / Diplomat / Prist conditional on the level of School/University in a city. In which file could I code it?

Also, for Western Europe, there were basically 2 main categories for Guilds: merchant guilds and craftmen guilds, each of them subdivided in many branches. These 2 categories were in "competition", the merchand guilds selling the raw materials at high price and buying the finished product at low price. It worked the other way for craftmen of course. Hence, creation of tension and unrest, even riot in some cases.
But I have no idea how it works for Muslim factions or Eastern European one

Again, I agree wit you, Lifth. I'd like to point out that we stick to the name "a guild" in the Western (or catholic) sense of the word. Maybe the system should not relate to the guilds in this sense, but to any internal organizations in the cities - so for the muslims and orthodox it could be different. It's just about our understanding of the word.

Thankfully, current Theologian Guilds will immediately work for the other side if taken over by someone of another religion. Odd that...

To my mind it's exastly a kind of an issue we should fix in the SSHIP - and not change the whole system, adding monitors and stuff.

[Kilo11]

I think that we should forget guilds for anything related to religions. As far as I know, there were no such "religious guilds". That point should be related to religious buildings or orders but not to guilds.

Thankfully, current Theologian Guilds will immediately work for the other side if taken over by someone of another religion. Odd that...

Yeah, I am certain the theologians guild should be removed. The first level of schools (i.e. "School") should be relabeled to either "Monastic School" or "Cathedral School" (I lean towards "Monastic School", as that is less blatantly Christian, making the name translate well for the other cultures/factions) to reflect that the first schools were in fact always attached to a church body, and these schools could also provide some small bonus to priests piety. The reasoning being that as teachers at such schools, they would become more adept in their own fields, making them more competent in general. Then, rather than having the Monastic School upgrade to a University, the University could have Monastic School as a prereq, but not replace it. So, any city with a University would also have a monastic school as well, showing the evolution of education, and also representing that universities often were not entirely aligned with the church, giving the church a reason to keep its own school. Not to mention, universities generally were for older students, whereas monastic schools dealt with children and young adults primarily.

Also, for Western Europe, there were basically 2 main categories for Guilds: merchant guilds and craftmen guilds, each of them subdivided in many branches. These 2 categories were in "competition", the merchand guilds selling the raw materials at high price and buying the finished product at low price. It worked the other way for craftmen of course. Hence, creation of tension and unrest, even riot in some cases.

This tension is indeed a tricky thing to get in there, but has to be present for the guilds to function in a historical way or make sense intuitively. I am thinking about perhaps having some kind of first step for all guilds that involves a "Law for the Establishment of Guilds", similar to the Lex "structures" from EBII. By using laws/statues along the way, some more subtle things could be done I think, but I will have to consider this more. At any rate, each guild should have its own bonuses and also (probably) little maluses, but as there become more guilds, especially competing ones, the maluses should complement each other, causing problems for the city.

But I have no idea how it works for Muslim factions or Eastern European one.

I also have no idea, and cannot seem to find any good material on the other regions. I will go forward as though Western/Central European guilds represent all guilds, but any good objections from people with knowledge of other regions is most welcome. However, just to motivate treating them all the same, guilds seem to largely have evolved for two reasons: increased urbanization and increased levels of wage labor based on a money (not commodity) economy. These factors were present in all areas at that time, and so guilds would be more or less the same. They did also take on a lot of cultural/social significance, which would differ from region to region, but the core elements are fairly universal, or can be ported to other places without serious modification. That at least should make it fair to start with a single unary idea of guilds, and tweak it later if necessary.

[tmodelsk]

[...]
I'd like to point out that we stick to the name "a guild" in the Western (or catholic) sense of the word. Maybe the system should not relate to the guilds in this sense, but to any internal organizations in the cities - so for the muslims and orthodox it could be different. It's just about our understanding of the word.
[....]

Interesting. Right now I'm thinking also about western military orders (Templars ,etc). But they are ok in SSHIP right now.
But also egyptian Mamluks - they've created some kind of very influential society.

That are just some simple associations.

[Jurand of Cracow]

such custom solutions requires heavy amount of time & effort & testing.
Maybe someone who knows EBII could write what 'magic' EBII is capable of.
Similar - TATW is also a 'gold mine' of ideas of such custom solutions.

I fully agree that those custom solutions would require a lot of work. I wouldn't go this way.
Concerning other modding teams: I think you need to know first what you want to do and then ask.
In the past, I've got much help from the TATW creators - Withwnar and Gigangus. If you have a pertinent question, they'd go into the details and answer. They're very insightful.
No similar experience with the EBII concerning coding, but they (Quintus, Kull) are very likely to provide some answers to your questions (what is not common among all mod creators). They also discuss some issues from EBII on the webpage and you may learn much from it (recently TimeWithArmy issue).

There're many pitfalls you may fall into while coding over existing mod. Look for instance at my analysis of a part of EDCT in EBII - it's clearly visible that there're a few different modders who were unaware of the work on the previous ones. I haven't checked if it was fixed in the current 2.3 version.

So my advice would be: stay with the current mechanics, make changes within its logic, no scripting.

The first level of schools (i.e. "School") should be relabeled to either "Monastic School" or "Cathedral School" (I lean towards "Monastic School", as that is less blatantly Christian, making the name translate well for the other cultures/factions) to reflect that the first schools were in fact always attached to a church body, and these schools could also provide some small bonus to priests piety. The reasoning being that as teachers at such schools, they would become more adept in their own fields, making them more competent in general. Then, rather than having the Monastic School upgrade to a University, the University could have Monastic School as a prereq, but not replace it. So, any city with a University would also have a monastic school as well, showing the evolution of education, and also representing that universities often were not entirely aligned with the church, giving the church a reason to keep its own school. Not to mention, universities generally were for older students, whereas monastic schools dealt with children and young adults primarily.

While this is an insightful analysis, the problem is: it has to be pertinent to all 3 religions. It has to be generic. "School" for me is just optimally neutral.

[Kilo11]

While this is an insightful analysis, the problem is: it has to be pertinent to all 3 religions. It has to be generic. "School" for me is just optimally neutral.

That's why I suggest "Monastic School", as monastery is a generic term explicitly referring to (at least) Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Eastern Religious (Buddhist, Jain, and Hindu) religious structures. However, there is the problem that Islam does not have a strong tradition of monasticism, seeming in fact to discourage it in many instances. That being said, a Madrasa looks darn near close to being a "Monastic School", so I think it's fine. That's just my two cents though.

[Lifthrasir]

I tend to agree with Kilo11 about monastic schools and universities. Monastic schools served more the religions where universities had more impact on administrations (at different levels depending on the culture, religion and area of course).

About guilds in the general meaning, I think that shouldn't be a problem on the mechanics side to consider all social groups, a part the huge amount of time and organisation it will requier to adapt all aspects of the game to it. I mean merchands/craftmen, thieves/assassins, religion, administration, etc... Then it just a matter to update the text files accordingly to make them appearing with the right denomination in game (that's how I see it but might be wrong).
NJ gave us already some good inputs about religious buildings not that long ago, in our dev forum.

I think the 1st step should be to agree on the general mechanic for such a feature in game. Then we can discuss on which group will be upgraded and/or at what level (hope I'm understable ).

[Jurand of Cracow]

Madrasa looks darn near close to being a "Monastic School"

Well, I might be wrong, but I didn't know that madrasas were related to the monks - I thought they're related to the Muslim rulers and the local communities. Furthermore, I thought there're schools not related to monasteries in some parts of Europe - but to the city organizations', noble courts, or any other organizations (again, I might be wrong).

I think the 1st step should be to agree on the general mechanic for such a feature in game. Then we can discuss on which group will be upgraded and/or at what level (hope I'm understable).

Following this call, I'd propose the following principles:
1) the goal is to make the guilds' system more realistic/historical,
2) we don't want to make the system too complicated for a player to understand it (rather few changes to the whole logic),
3) the engine mechanics stays what means:
--- one guild per settlement,
--- founding guilds, not building them,
--- collecting (hidden) points for various actions, done per settlement, but also per faction.
--- between 1 and 3 stages of buildings,
--- they provide some of the following bonuses: additional (flat) income; bonuses to trade income, public order, religious conversion, population growth, buildings' costs (both for the settlement and faction-wide); experience of the units; availability of units; better characteristics of the priests/merchants/diplomats/spies/assassins, maybe princesses and generals.
4) the number of the guilds may increase just by a few (due to the in-game limit of the buildings).
5) buildings should be the same for all 3 religions (but some guild may be unavailable for some religions?).
6) availability related to the level of a settlement (eg Minor City).

I would propose that we develop a kind of definition what we think a guild is in the SSHIP context. My proposal is:
"An internal organization of (some) inhabitants of a settlement which stands out in the economic landscape of this settlement".

This would justify the presence of just one establishment per settlement and would be flexible to encompass also organizations which are not precisely "guilds" in the western sense of the word.


Concerning mechanics, I still have this question: if it's feasible to make a building providing the bonus of Piety of the new spawned priests? I can't see anything related neither in the EDB nor in the EDG). For instance: if we would decide to make the quality of a Merchant / Diplomat / Priest conditional on the level of University, in which file should we code it?

[Kilo11]

To most of JoC's points, I am in agreement (or at I least begrudgingly acquiesece, for now ), but there are a couple things I believe should definitely not be in the setup of the guilds.

Following this call, I'd propose the following principles:
--- between 1 and 3 stages of buildings,
--- they provide some of the following bonuses: ... buildings' costs (both for the settlement and faction-wide)...

I think that for almost any guild we want to include, it only makes sense to have the first tier. And in the cases where it is clearly sensible to have more tiers, the way they are set up now makes little sense anyway. For example, a merchants guild makes total sense. An HQ for the merchants guild also makes sense. But what is a "Merchants Masters Guild"? In guild societies and laws, being a master involved the production of a "masterpiece", thus showing that you were deserving of the title "master". So I can imagine that some sort of crafts guilds (carpenters, metalworkers, etc.) might have masters guilds, where those skills are taught and assessed, but a merchant cannot be a master in this sense. So some guilds should have tiers one and three, but not two. These little points need to be incorporated somehow.
Second, nothing should be faction-wide! I am sorry, but if I have a developed mason's guild in Nottingham, and have conquered Jerusalem through a crusade, it is simply ridiculous that my guild there (in Nottingham) would have any impact whatsoever on a settlement roughly 4000 km away. Faction-wide bonuses make sense only insofar as the faction is relatively localised, but the more someone expands, the less sense these bonuses will make. Moreover, JoCs own proposal below for our understanding of guilds highlights them as "internal organizations", so why would they give faction-wide bonuses?

I would propose that we develop a kind of definition what we think a guild is in the SSHIP context. My proposal is:
"An internal organization of (some) inhabitants of a settlement which stands out in the economic landscape of this settlement".

This would justify the presence of just one establishment per settlement and would be flexible to encompass also organizations which are not precisely "guilds" in the western sense of the word.

Insofar as we are sticking with the one guild per settlement situation (something I take issue with, but that's another matter) I think JoCs proposal here makes sense. He is also right that we need some sort of "guiding light" to keep us all on the same page when we think about the guilds. One point about his proporal that is also worth highlighting is the centrality of economics in our understanding of guilds. They will also have some social and administrative impacts, but they fit most squarely into the local economic landscape. So, to preempt some questions and get clarification from JoC, I take it to mean then that this understanding of "guild" implies we will eliminate the archers, theologians, explorers, assassins, and thieves guilds, right? Since these are not professions that would prompt the formation of a proper guild, they go out, and maybe can be replaced in-game via something else, but certainly not as guilds.

There are a few further things I think are worth including as well though.
1) A first step toward founding any guild in a city is the "contruction" of a "Law for the Foundation of Guilds". The legality of these institutions was very important, and had a great impact on the cities' functioning, so this step is crucial. This could then be added as a trigger in the EDG files so that the "building" proposed must be in place for any guild to be offered.
2) There be an actual building that can be constructed (not a guild at all), whose prereq is the presence of a guild (doesnt't matter which one), and which acts as a central office for all guilds in the city. The guild you found is the one that "stands out", to use JoCs proposal, but there will always be other ones we don't represent. They will have competing interests which often lead to disputes, so the governing faction would have an interest in building a "Guilds Meeting House", where the heads of the various guilds could resolve disputes. This building would have only one tier, be conditional on the presence of a guild, and give a law bonus, to represent the added order of having a forum for the guilds to resolve their issues.
3) There should be a "building" for "Free City", which would mean a city where there are no guilds allowed. In my research so far I have found some reference to this type of organization, with some cities disallowing all guilds, due to the small issues guilds can cause, and to the fact that they would often become overly powerful in a settlement. This Free City idea is something I have not found much material on though (if anyone knows of some research, please point me toward it), so I am not yet certain how best to implement it, nor what bonuses/maluses would be attached. It should be the case though that one has to decide between making guilds legal or not in a city (similar to how trade unions had to be carved out and were not automatically seen as acceptable) with some bonuses and maluses attached to both sides.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I think that for almost any guild we want to include, it only makes sense to have the first tier. And in the cases where it is clearly sensible to have more tiers, the way they are set up now makes little sense anyway. For example, a merchants guild makes total sense. An HQ for the merchants guild also makes sense. But what is a "Merchants Masters Guild"? In guild societies and laws, being a master involved the production of a "masterpiece", thus showing that you were deserving of the title "master". So I can imagine that some sort of crafts guilds (carpenters, metalworkers, etc.) might have masters guilds, where those skills are taught and assessed, but a merchant cannot be a master in this sense. So some guilds should have tiers one and three, but not two. These little points need to be incorporated somehow.

I don't think a "Master guild" is meant to be providing a title "master" (there're not such titles awarded by the guilds anyway). I think it's a "master" one in the sense "the best in the country". And this level is plausible to me, at least for some "guilds", including the merchants (the best merchant's skills an apprentice can get in the country).
On the other hand, I don't know if an HQ would make sense. Even in the meaning "the best in the world" it doesn't sound convincing to me.
I'm not hostile to the idea of having one level guilds. But I'd propose to decide on case-by-case basis.

Second, nothing should be faction-wide! I am sorry, but if I have a developed mason's guild in Nottingham, and have conquered Jerusalem through a crusade, it is simply ridiculous that my guild there (in Nottingham) would have any impact whatsoever on a settlement roughly 4000 km away. Faction-wide bonuses make sense only insofar as the faction is relatively localised, but the more someone expands, the less sense these bonuses will make. Moreover, JoCs own proposal below for our understanding of guilds highlights them as "internal organizations", so why would they give faction-wide bonuses?

I think most of the factions are localized in the SSHIP. Just try to make an empire consisting of lands far away from each other: public order, strategy and loyalty issues will eat you (yeah, Alavaria could make a big empire but he exploited a loyalty bug in coding and also took over many guilds providing public order bonuses, and yes, he showed us that it's still possible to conquer a world in the SSHIP). You've taken an example of "ad absurdum" type.
Let's think about a situation of faction-wide bonuses, I don't have it handy - but it's how a part of the system works in the M2TW engine, not only on guilds. Many bonuses are faction-wide for higher tier buildings, I recall.

to get clarification from JoC, I take it to mean then that this understanding of "guild" implies we will eliminate the archers, theologians, explorers, assassins, and thieves guilds, right? Since these are not professions that would prompt the formation of a proper guild, they go out, and maybe can be replaced in-game via something else, but certainly not as guilds.

Not exactly all of them. I may imagine that inhabitants of a region specialize in archery - and this is something that we may reflect in an "Archers Society" (and the higher level "Elite Archers Society") or "Archery center" building (technically a guild) in a castle. (btw. I've got in my notes that there's a bug in the M2TW engine and the buildings don't provide bonuses for the missile units, thus Archers' guild doesn't make any sense. can somebody confirm it?)
Theologians - maybe a different name, but I see the scope for a region specializing in religious education (and this would be the place to recruit priests, an example might a region with Athos mountain). Again - with a different name, not a guild. But we may choose a different way for beefing up the priests (cathedrals?). I don't have a firm position on it.
Assassins, thieves - yeah, I don't know what they reflect in history...
Explorers - I assume this is to reflect the 15th-century phenomenon of Portugal and Spain and Aragon to explore distant lands. Again, to be thought out, I'm not convinced in either way.

1) A first step toward founding any guild in a city is the "contruction" of a "Law for the Foundation of Guilds". The legality of these institutions was very important, and had a great impact on the cities' functioning, so this step is crucial. This could then be added as a trigger in the EDG files so that the "building" proposed must be in place for any guild to be offered.

1. if we define guilds as not-always-guilds-in-the-very-meaning-of-the-word, then it's not really pertinent. 2. more importantly, I've always had in mind that the rationale of having a minimum requirement of the guild to be in Minor City is exactly the legal readiness of this city to have a guild. In this sense "Law for the Foundation of Guilds" is related to the very concept of a Minor City and a separate building is not required (plus we save on the building number in the EDB - might be devoted to another building.

2) There be an actual building that can be constructed (not a guild at all), whose prereq is the presence of a guild (doesnt't matter which one), and which acts as a central office for all guilds in the city. The guild you found is the one that "stands out", to use JoCs proposal, but there will always be other ones we don't represent. They will have competing interests which often lead to disputes, so the governing faction would have an interest in building a "Guilds Meeting House", where the heads of the various guilds could resolve disputes. This building would have only one tier, be conditional on the presence of a guild, and give a law bonus, to represent the added order of having a forum for the guilds to resolve their issues.

Possible, I think, but I don't know if it's not redundant. Plus the max number of the buildings...

3) There should be a "building" for "Free City", which would mean a city where there are no guilds allowed. In my research so far I have found some reference to this type of organization, with some cities disallowing all guilds, due to the small issues guilds can cause, and to the fact that they would often become overly powerful in a settlement. This Free City idea is something I have not found much material on though (if anyone knows of some research, please point me toward it), so I am not yet certain how best to implement it, nor what bonuses/maluses would be attached. It should be the case though that one has to decide between making guilds legal or not in a city (similar to how trade unions had to be carved out and were not automatically seen as acceptable) with some bonuses and maluses attached to both sides.

This is again related to the Western definitions of guilds. Personally, I'm convinced neither on plausibility nor on desirability.

[Lifthrasir]

I haven't made my mind yet and need to make some researches (in history and in modding as well). For now, I'm in favor to remove all these "fancy" guilds in game such as Theologians, Archers, Explorers, etc...

Regarding thieves and spies, the concept/mechanic of guild can be kept for simplicity but should be renamed as brotherhood or similar instead of guild. Also note that many spies at that time were basically diplomats or even merchands. Can you imagine a better position to see the defense of a settlement for instance?