akukaze
Recruit
Preamble:
I'm generally not a poster on forums and threads, but I decided that since other folks might agree with my thoughts and desires from the game, I'd post, just in case it gains some traction, or if other lurkers who wouldn't post these thoughts themselves might be able to post "+1" or find some other way to make their support known.
Also, I know I'm ramble-y, and am suggesting some changes that are hard to completely encapsulate, because - well - everything is tied together, and one can't start unraveling one thread, without pulling on two or three others, so it's easiest for me to say "like ___" or "use the ___ system", because that correlation should bring the correct assumptions with it. If you can express the same ideas more clearly, and in fewer words - please do!
Main Point:
For starters, I think the game is great, and a lot of fun. I know plenty of folks have run into crashes and bugs, but I think Taleworlds did a really great job with what they've delivered so far.
That being said, I think what I want from this game, is different from what it currently is. The most concise way I can describe what I'd like this game to be, is a "Mount-and-Blade-ified Crusader Kings 2". What this means, to me, is many things - which I'll describe in more detail below, but essentially, letting there be more "actors" in the game, who have more "options", with those options being the same as those available to you, and your relationship with given actors being the main thing you need to worry about with Lieges, vassals, and clan members.
CK2 and Background Info:
(If you've played Crusader Kings 2, you can skip this section, as you'll know all of this)
Let's start with a bit of background on Crusader Kings 2 (henceforth, CK2). It's a Grand Strategy game, where you're playing as a character (for example, let's say you're Duke Leofwine of Kent. You have a Wife, and some children. Your son is your primary heir, but since 'gavelkind' is the law of the land, your titles will be split between your male sons upon your death, instead of the eldest inheriting everything, meaning you'll need to talk to the nobles around you with daughters to find some that would be a good match for your sons, etc etc etc), and when your character dies, you continue playing as the heir to your dynasty. You learn a lot about how the Feudal system works, as in, how the Duke of Anjou - a subject of the King of France, could declare war on the count of Valois -- another subject of the King of France. Also - how the Count of Valois, and the count of Amiens could be the same person. There's a LOT of things any medieval game could pull from CK2, but I'm going to stick to my ideas for Bannerlord, but I do suggest you guys look into CK2 if you haven't already, because it is another great game.
In CK2 - you're not able to arbitrarily declare war. Why is this? because (at least, in Christendom), you needed a valid Casus Belli (literally "an Occasion of War", think of it as a "Cause for War"), otherwise, your war would be seen as unjust, illegal, not getting the sanction of the Pope, etc. This would also be something that made your own vassals worried, because if their leader seems to be arbitrary with taking things he wants, whenever he wants, "just because" - when might he come for your things?
In order to declare war, you need a reason - so how do you get one of those? Either you fabricate a claim, press someones (or your own) claim, Holy War or Conquest, Rebel against Tyranny and probably others I'm forgetting about. What is a claim? You may have heard of "Landed Titles" in Noble Peerage. These were titles like Duke of York. The Land associated with the Title was the "Duchy of York". This land and title was passed down to the next of kin of the noble who held the title (though it could be revoked - with just, and legal cause, and assuming that lord didn't raise his banners in rebellion). What does Fabricate a claim mean? It means, pay a lot of bribes to corruptible priests and scholars who keep lineage charts of your family, and find some way to link your family ancestry into the succession ABOVE the current holder, then bribe them to forge those documents, make em look official, and spread the lie. Then, rant and rave publicly about how the land and title belong to you, and go to war to claim it. War is NOT a "you keep what you take" style. You may have to invade half their territory to pummel them into submission, but if you went to war with Duke Gyrth of East Anglia over who has the title of Count of Essex -- you only keep that title, and those lands. Imagine, briefly, how quickly this system would slow down the snowball effect of Kingdoms in Bannerlord getting knocked out in one or two bad wars.
There's also "intrigue", and assassination attempts, and the problems of "who inherits when the childless Duke dies?" Maybe YOU would inherit, since he is a cousin once removed, and you're the next in line backing up in the family tree to find the next-nearest living relative. Maybe killing him before he can get married and have a child would be something you could consider.
My Thoughts for CK2-style Bannerlord:
I think, sadly, this would require a larger campaign map, since right now, losing a single territory for a Kingdom is much more devastating than it would be in a CK2 kingdom. If we were to adopt the ideas I would like to see implemented, each kingdom on the current map would be the size of a small duchy in what I envision -- and as it stands, Calradia feels like it's an analog for all of Europe, squeezed into the size of Southern England. However, a lot of the ground work is there. But enough preamble - here are my thoughts:
1.) Add Landed Titles to the game.
2.) Add County regions to the game
3.) Add a Casus Belli bound War System
4.) Remove the "Influence Point" system, and replace it with an "opinion-based" metric
5.) Allow Vassals to declare their own wars. As in: Lord Johnny Big-britches and his one city + one castle declared war on the entire Khuzait - his funeral... or "Lord Martin the Envious in Vlandia declares war on Lord Stan the Hoarder in Vlandia because Martin thinks Stan has something which belongs to Martin"
6.) Allow Vassals to Create and Run Factions
7.) Allow me (and Lords) to issue Standing Orders to Companions (Hunt down bandits in ____ County, Patrol ____ County for enemies, Join ____'s army, Get X amount of food for this army, etc)
misc ideas:
8.) Languages/Cultures
Point 1 and 2, Landed Titles and Country Regions:
Each "Town" would be the "County capital". For example, Amitatys. If you were given the title Count of Amitatys, that town would be yours. Inside the County of Amitatys, would be the Barony of Thorios Castle - who would likely be your Vassal (doesn't have to be though -- however if it isn't, that's a claim you could press). We could also say that Amitatys, Jalmarys, and Zeonica are in the (just making up a name here) Duchy of Marys. One character might have that Title (Duke of Marys), and probably Count of Zeonica. This means he should have, as vassals, the Counts of Amitatys and Jalmarys. The King would have his Duchy Vassals and the odd County vassals, and a few Baron vassals. The Dukes would have their County vassals, and a few odd Barony vassals. The Counts would have their baronys, and the Barons would have their castles. This system gives the Feudal structure substance for maneuvering, where you can gain tangible power without being a king, to the point you might think you would do a better job than the king -- and maybe your vassals agree with you... and maybe some of the other lords you've shmoozed agree with you, and together, you fabricate a claim (or use the dragon banner) to oust the old king, and have a good old-fashioned civil war to decide the matter.
Point 3, Add a Casus Belli bounded War System:
Have you ever felt like you were doing something down south for 15 minutes, then head back north, to find out that while you were kicking the pants off the Aserai for Battania -- the Vlandians, Sturgians, and Khuzait declared war on you, and took 2/3rds of all your kingdoms territory? Then halfway through your march back north to take it back -- they made peace, and you're just like -- "f*** - we're screwed until we can go back to war with them and take that territory back!"
I think this is the problem with an non-bounded War system. It allows the conqueror to keep everything they took, which can be a quick snatch-and-grab. The casus belli system should hopefully prevent the need to quickly take as many places as possible, as quickly as possible, and instead make the focus the aim of the war goal. As in "Vlandia declares war on Battania, citing So-and-so's rightful claim to the county of Pen Cannoc". This doesn't mean they can't siege and plunder towns and castles besides Pen Cannoc, but they shouldn't conquer and own those other territories. By sieging and plundering them, the goal is to lower the enemies effectiveness, and hit them in the pocket-books, and damage their armies supplies, while re-supplying the attackers, and boosting their own gold reserve. In other words, when someone takes a settlement, they should be "occupiers", not "the new masters of the place". Meaning the current lord shouldn't lose his title just because his settlement was temporarily plundered, nor should the new owners start taxing it daily to help them continue the war - nor should they be able to recruit from it, since these people were just looted by the invaders, etc etc etc.
Point 4, Remove the Influence Point system and replace it with a Person-to-Person Opinion metric:
If I vote for a vassal to receive land, he'll like me more, and want to support me more in turn. If I constantly vote against a vassal - he should constantly vote against me out of spite. If I'm in trouble, I should be able to ask my friend, the count of the next town over to come to my aid -- and if I married his daughter without his permission, he might snub the request, and tell me to "get lanced". If I have a companion, who I've installed as Baron of a castle under my command, he might be consorting with folks he gets along with better than he does with me, and if I never promote him, or give him anything to keep him happy, maybe he and his new friends try to find some reason to break away -- or maybe he tries to have me killed.
I understand why the Influence Point system was added -- it's simple, it represents how much weight you carry, etc -- but influence isn't a currency, and this implementation feels "game-y", which isn't what I want from Bannerlord. In Mount and Blade, I don't want to see representations of what my character has - I want to see what my character has. Like, I want to be in the siege battle, not auto-complete it like in CK2. I want to fight in the siege, not watch my men fight like in the Total War games. Not to bash the current system - I think it works, but I'd prefer a different system.
Point 5, Allow Vassals to declare their own wars:
I don't want this to come off as "this game should be CK2", because then I'd just play that. I want this game to feel "real", y'know? If I'm a super powerful vassal, Duke of Marys, and some other dukedom - and I have a lot of vassals with high opinions of me, who raised their own powerful armies, and themselves have each expanded their territories and strengths -- and also if I look over and see the Khuzait are getting obliterated by the Aserai -- maybe the Khuzait took some land from me that I want back, but my king is busy doing something else -- I would say "f*** it, I'll do this myself", declare war on the Khuzait, and take it. I can't declare war on a vassal of another kingdom, as legally - his liege would be obligated to step in. Internally, I can declare war on another of my kingdoms vassals (assuming I have a valid casus belli), because my king can't interject without taking a side, and if I have a valid casus belli, going to war against me would be him breaking his oath to me (to protect my rights), and joining me would do the same with his other vassal. Believe it or not - this is realistic -- just look at the War of the Roses, or anything else in Englands history, really.
Point 6, Allow Vassals to Create and Run Factions
So, lets say I was a Baron of a Castle, and I don't like my king anymore. He keeps starting wars, and passing laws that are negatively impacting me, and some of my allies. I decide something needs to be done. Looking through the encyclopedia, I see he has a son who is of age to take the thrown, and start up a faction (same style as in CK2) to have Derthert step down and let his son Derpert become king (or if not his son, maybe his brother, or whoever is next in line for the crown). My allies who are also upset join my faction, and now that our strength is insurmountable to King Derthert - we send him a letter outlining our demands, and that if he does not, we shall dub him a Tyrant, and do what must be done for the good of the realm. He either gives in, or calls us traitors, and we go to war. If we win, Derpert becomes King. If he wins, we're captured, officially traitors, and possibly executed, or if not, thrown in the dungeon, and having our titles stripped from us. High risk, high reward, and a chance to - as a vassal - make some big changes we really want to see in our kingdom.
Point 7, Allow me (and AI Lords) to issue Standing Orders to Companions
Let's say I'm the Lord of Amitatys. I have a problem with looters running around, being annoying. Where are my parties? Oh, two kingdoms away doing who-knows-what? Why can't I have them focus on making my territory safe for villagers? "Hey, Velasquez the Taco-less, clear looters out of the County of Amitatys."
or
Man, my army just got annihilated, but Empress Rhagaea is is kicking butt over in the south... "Hey, Hans the Lederhosen - go join Rhagaeas Army.
Who knows, maybe even joining her army without having been asked would bump her opinion of Hans, and me, since I sent him. Maybe even he does so well over there while I'm sitting back doing nothing, being lazy, that she grants him his own his own lordship - making him her vassal, and no longer my companion -- but just maybe -- my friend and Peer.
Misc Point, Languages/Cultures:
Also, we'll assume the Lingua Franca is something like "Calradian", but a Khuzait tribesman definitely speaks a different native language to a Battanian hillsman. Since everyone speaks basic Calradian - everyone can communicate, but maybe, if my Culture at Character creation is Battanian, I also speak the common Battanian language, and get a +2 to interactions with battanian Nobles, soldiers, peasants, etc... and can maybe learn a second language at character creation (at the expense of something else), and maybe learn one additional language through study during the actual game. For children, maybe you can set focuses for their tutelage, and linguistics could be one of them.
Finally:
If you read everything - I'm sorry - I know I ramble. I write the way I speak, which is ramble-y. I know I haven't expressed all the ideas I have, nor have I expressed the ideas I tried to put down here in a way that does them justice, but I figure it's better to get something out, rather than nothing - so, here's my attempt. Also, the people who have played CK2 probably think "hell yeah - this sounds amazing", but I have no illusions that people who haven't played CK2 will look at this list and think "wtf? No, that sounds bad." Hopefully, if you're one of the folks with the second opinion, ask me questions - or bring up counterpoints, and I can answer in a more focused manner -- and I'm certain I can convince you.
I'm generally not a poster on forums and threads, but I decided that since other folks might agree with my thoughts and desires from the game, I'd post, just in case it gains some traction, or if other lurkers who wouldn't post these thoughts themselves might be able to post "+1" or find some other way to make their support known.
Also, I know I'm ramble-y, and am suggesting some changes that are hard to completely encapsulate, because - well - everything is tied together, and one can't start unraveling one thread, without pulling on two or three others, so it's easiest for me to say "like ___" or "use the ___ system", because that correlation should bring the correct assumptions with it. If you can express the same ideas more clearly, and in fewer words - please do!
Main Point:
For starters, I think the game is great, and a lot of fun. I know plenty of folks have run into crashes and bugs, but I think Taleworlds did a really great job with what they've delivered so far.
That being said, I think what I want from this game, is different from what it currently is. The most concise way I can describe what I'd like this game to be, is a "Mount-and-Blade-ified Crusader Kings 2". What this means, to me, is many things - which I'll describe in more detail below, but essentially, letting there be more "actors" in the game, who have more "options", with those options being the same as those available to you, and your relationship with given actors being the main thing you need to worry about with Lieges, vassals, and clan members.
CK2 and Background Info:
(If you've played Crusader Kings 2, you can skip this section, as you'll know all of this)
Let's start with a bit of background on Crusader Kings 2 (henceforth, CK2). It's a Grand Strategy game, where you're playing as a character (for example, let's say you're Duke Leofwine of Kent. You have a Wife, and some children. Your son is your primary heir, but since 'gavelkind' is the law of the land, your titles will be split between your male sons upon your death, instead of the eldest inheriting everything, meaning you'll need to talk to the nobles around you with daughters to find some that would be a good match for your sons, etc etc etc), and when your character dies, you continue playing as the heir to your dynasty. You learn a lot about how the Feudal system works, as in, how the Duke of Anjou - a subject of the King of France, could declare war on the count of Valois -- another subject of the King of France. Also - how the Count of Valois, and the count of Amiens could be the same person. There's a LOT of things any medieval game could pull from CK2, but I'm going to stick to my ideas for Bannerlord, but I do suggest you guys look into CK2 if you haven't already, because it is another great game.
In CK2 - you're not able to arbitrarily declare war. Why is this? because (at least, in Christendom), you needed a valid Casus Belli (literally "an Occasion of War", think of it as a "Cause for War"), otherwise, your war would be seen as unjust, illegal, not getting the sanction of the Pope, etc. This would also be something that made your own vassals worried, because if their leader seems to be arbitrary with taking things he wants, whenever he wants, "just because" - when might he come for your things?
In order to declare war, you need a reason - so how do you get one of those? Either you fabricate a claim, press someones (or your own) claim, Holy War or Conquest, Rebel against Tyranny and probably others I'm forgetting about. What is a claim? You may have heard of "Landed Titles" in Noble Peerage. These were titles like Duke of York. The Land associated with the Title was the "Duchy of York". This land and title was passed down to the next of kin of the noble who held the title (though it could be revoked - with just, and legal cause, and assuming that lord didn't raise his banners in rebellion). What does Fabricate a claim mean? It means, pay a lot of bribes to corruptible priests and scholars who keep lineage charts of your family, and find some way to link your family ancestry into the succession ABOVE the current holder, then bribe them to forge those documents, make em look official, and spread the lie. Then, rant and rave publicly about how the land and title belong to you, and go to war to claim it. War is NOT a "you keep what you take" style. You may have to invade half their territory to pummel them into submission, but if you went to war with Duke Gyrth of East Anglia over who has the title of Count of Essex -- you only keep that title, and those lands. Imagine, briefly, how quickly this system would slow down the snowball effect of Kingdoms in Bannerlord getting knocked out in one or two bad wars.
There's also "intrigue", and assassination attempts, and the problems of "who inherits when the childless Duke dies?" Maybe YOU would inherit, since he is a cousin once removed, and you're the next in line backing up in the family tree to find the next-nearest living relative. Maybe killing him before he can get married and have a child would be something you could consider.
My Thoughts for CK2-style Bannerlord:
I think, sadly, this would require a larger campaign map, since right now, losing a single territory for a Kingdom is much more devastating than it would be in a CK2 kingdom. If we were to adopt the ideas I would like to see implemented, each kingdom on the current map would be the size of a small duchy in what I envision -- and as it stands, Calradia feels like it's an analog for all of Europe, squeezed into the size of Southern England. However, a lot of the ground work is there. But enough preamble - here are my thoughts:
1.) Add Landed Titles to the game.
2.) Add County regions to the game
3.) Add a Casus Belli bound War System
4.) Remove the "Influence Point" system, and replace it with an "opinion-based" metric
5.) Allow Vassals to declare their own wars. As in: Lord Johnny Big-britches and his one city + one castle declared war on the entire Khuzait - his funeral... or "Lord Martin the Envious in Vlandia declares war on Lord Stan the Hoarder in Vlandia because Martin thinks Stan has something which belongs to Martin"
6.) Allow Vassals to Create and Run Factions
7.) Allow me (and Lords) to issue Standing Orders to Companions (Hunt down bandits in ____ County, Patrol ____ County for enemies, Join ____'s army, Get X amount of food for this army, etc)
misc ideas:
8.) Languages/Cultures
Point 1 and 2, Landed Titles and Country Regions:
Each "Town" would be the "County capital". For example, Amitatys. If you were given the title Count of Amitatys, that town would be yours. Inside the County of Amitatys, would be the Barony of Thorios Castle - who would likely be your Vassal (doesn't have to be though -- however if it isn't, that's a claim you could press). We could also say that Amitatys, Jalmarys, and Zeonica are in the (just making up a name here) Duchy of Marys. One character might have that Title (Duke of Marys), and probably Count of Zeonica. This means he should have, as vassals, the Counts of Amitatys and Jalmarys. The King would have his Duchy Vassals and the odd County vassals, and a few Baron vassals. The Dukes would have their County vassals, and a few odd Barony vassals. The Counts would have their baronys, and the Barons would have their castles. This system gives the Feudal structure substance for maneuvering, where you can gain tangible power without being a king, to the point you might think you would do a better job than the king -- and maybe your vassals agree with you... and maybe some of the other lords you've shmoozed agree with you, and together, you fabricate a claim (or use the dragon banner) to oust the old king, and have a good old-fashioned civil war to decide the matter.
Point 3, Add a Casus Belli bounded War System:
Have you ever felt like you were doing something down south for 15 minutes, then head back north, to find out that while you were kicking the pants off the Aserai for Battania -- the Vlandians, Sturgians, and Khuzait declared war on you, and took 2/3rds of all your kingdoms territory? Then halfway through your march back north to take it back -- they made peace, and you're just like -- "f*** - we're screwed until we can go back to war with them and take that territory back!"
I think this is the problem with an non-bounded War system. It allows the conqueror to keep everything they took, which can be a quick snatch-and-grab. The casus belli system should hopefully prevent the need to quickly take as many places as possible, as quickly as possible, and instead make the focus the aim of the war goal. As in "Vlandia declares war on Battania, citing So-and-so's rightful claim to the county of Pen Cannoc". This doesn't mean they can't siege and plunder towns and castles besides Pen Cannoc, but they shouldn't conquer and own those other territories. By sieging and plundering them, the goal is to lower the enemies effectiveness, and hit them in the pocket-books, and damage their armies supplies, while re-supplying the attackers, and boosting their own gold reserve. In other words, when someone takes a settlement, they should be "occupiers", not "the new masters of the place". Meaning the current lord shouldn't lose his title just because his settlement was temporarily plundered, nor should the new owners start taxing it daily to help them continue the war - nor should they be able to recruit from it, since these people were just looted by the invaders, etc etc etc.
Point 4, Remove the Influence Point system and replace it with a Person-to-Person Opinion metric:
If I vote for a vassal to receive land, he'll like me more, and want to support me more in turn. If I constantly vote against a vassal - he should constantly vote against me out of spite. If I'm in trouble, I should be able to ask my friend, the count of the next town over to come to my aid -- and if I married his daughter without his permission, he might snub the request, and tell me to "get lanced". If I have a companion, who I've installed as Baron of a castle under my command, he might be consorting with folks he gets along with better than he does with me, and if I never promote him, or give him anything to keep him happy, maybe he and his new friends try to find some reason to break away -- or maybe he tries to have me killed.
I understand why the Influence Point system was added -- it's simple, it represents how much weight you carry, etc -- but influence isn't a currency, and this implementation feels "game-y", which isn't what I want from Bannerlord. In Mount and Blade, I don't want to see representations of what my character has - I want to see what my character has. Like, I want to be in the siege battle, not auto-complete it like in CK2. I want to fight in the siege, not watch my men fight like in the Total War games. Not to bash the current system - I think it works, but I'd prefer a different system.
Point 5, Allow Vassals to declare their own wars:
I don't want this to come off as "this game should be CK2", because then I'd just play that. I want this game to feel "real", y'know? If I'm a super powerful vassal, Duke of Marys, and some other dukedom - and I have a lot of vassals with high opinions of me, who raised their own powerful armies, and themselves have each expanded their territories and strengths -- and also if I look over and see the Khuzait are getting obliterated by the Aserai -- maybe the Khuzait took some land from me that I want back, but my king is busy doing something else -- I would say "f*** it, I'll do this myself", declare war on the Khuzait, and take it. I can't declare war on a vassal of another kingdom, as legally - his liege would be obligated to step in. Internally, I can declare war on another of my kingdoms vassals (assuming I have a valid casus belli), because my king can't interject without taking a side, and if I have a valid casus belli, going to war against me would be him breaking his oath to me (to protect my rights), and joining me would do the same with his other vassal. Believe it or not - this is realistic -- just look at the War of the Roses, or anything else in Englands history, really.
Point 6, Allow Vassals to Create and Run Factions
So, lets say I was a Baron of a Castle, and I don't like my king anymore. He keeps starting wars, and passing laws that are negatively impacting me, and some of my allies. I decide something needs to be done. Looking through the encyclopedia, I see he has a son who is of age to take the thrown, and start up a faction (same style as in CK2) to have Derthert step down and let his son Derpert become king (or if not his son, maybe his brother, or whoever is next in line for the crown). My allies who are also upset join my faction, and now that our strength is insurmountable to King Derthert - we send him a letter outlining our demands, and that if he does not, we shall dub him a Tyrant, and do what must be done for the good of the realm. He either gives in, or calls us traitors, and we go to war. If we win, Derpert becomes King. If he wins, we're captured, officially traitors, and possibly executed, or if not, thrown in the dungeon, and having our titles stripped from us. High risk, high reward, and a chance to - as a vassal - make some big changes we really want to see in our kingdom.
Point 7, Allow me (and AI Lords) to issue Standing Orders to Companions
Let's say I'm the Lord of Amitatys. I have a problem with looters running around, being annoying. Where are my parties? Oh, two kingdoms away doing who-knows-what? Why can't I have them focus on making my territory safe for villagers? "Hey, Velasquez the Taco-less, clear looters out of the County of Amitatys."
or
Man, my army just got annihilated, but Empress Rhagaea is is kicking butt over in the south... "Hey, Hans the Lederhosen - go join Rhagaeas Army.
Who knows, maybe even joining her army without having been asked would bump her opinion of Hans, and me, since I sent him. Maybe even he does so well over there while I'm sitting back doing nothing, being lazy, that she grants him his own his own lordship - making him her vassal, and no longer my companion -- but just maybe -- my friend and Peer.
Misc Point, Languages/Cultures:
Also, we'll assume the Lingua Franca is something like "Calradian", but a Khuzait tribesman definitely speaks a different native language to a Battanian hillsman. Since everyone speaks basic Calradian - everyone can communicate, but maybe, if my Culture at Character creation is Battanian, I also speak the common Battanian language, and get a +2 to interactions with battanian Nobles, soldiers, peasants, etc... and can maybe learn a second language at character creation (at the expense of something else), and maybe learn one additional language through study during the actual game. For children, maybe you can set focuses for their tutelage, and linguistics could be one of them.
Finally:
If you read everything - I'm sorry - I know I ramble. I write the way I speak, which is ramble-y. I know I haven't expressed all the ideas I have, nor have I expressed the ideas I tried to put down here in a way that does them justice, but I figure it's better to get something out, rather than nothing - so, here's my attempt. Also, the people who have played CK2 probably think "hell yeah - this sounds amazing", but I have no illusions that people who haven't played CK2 will look at this list and think "wtf? No, that sounds bad." Hopefully, if you're one of the folks with the second opinion, ask me questions - or bring up counterpoints, and I can answer in a more focused manner -- and I'm certain I can convince you.
my list was:
