View Full Version : KotR Post cataclysm mechanics
As the cataclysm approaches its end, I think it would be a good idea to take stock and think about the OOC implications of a transition back to regular play.
What I would like to suggest is that as much as possible, everything should be determined in character. The fate of Swabia, Prague, Outremer, the speed of reconquest, re-incorporation of settlements, Charter Amendments etc should all be decided by debate and voting in the Diet. There’s been a risk in this game of the OOC discussions being livelier than the Diet ones. Now there is so much at stake, it’s a chance to give the Diet a shot in the arm. So this post will not touch on those issues at all.
However, there are some OOC things I think we can learn from the cataclysm to improve the regular game and these are issues that are best discussed OOC, and perhaps before all the IC politicking starts in earnest, to keep the two things separate. Indeed, it is important for rebellious players to know what the OOC groundrules will be after the cataclysm when deciding whether their avatars will continue to rebel. If the Chancellor can muster the whole resources of the Reich and move all armies, then any rebellion will arguably be a fool's game.
I am wording these proposals as OOC Charter Amendments, as that may be how we come to decide them. Explanation and justifications are in spoilers.
OOC CA 14.1: econ21 is authorised to use the console to periodically strengthen AI armies.
When we started giving the AI money, the AI had virtually no decent armies and the money improved the challenge a lot. Some factions, like Egypt and Poland, started putting together nasty armies. But in the cataclysm, giving neighbouring armies as well as cash vastly improved the challenge. War with Byzantium would have been a petit dejeuner without the extra troops we spawned that made them - temporarily - the strongest faction. Ditto the “threats” from most other powers - only Poland was really giving us a fight in Europe before the cataclysm.
The kind of intervention I am thinking of is similar to what I did at the start of the cataclysm - spawning about 4 full stack armies per enemy faction each Diet and then letting the AI get on with it for 10 turns or so. I would not keep topping them up or teleporting them on a turn-by-turn basis, as it would be too time consuming and potentially “gamey”.
OOC CA 14.2: During each turn, the Chancellor will allow players a 48 hour interval to move their characters and fight battles. Exception - players engaged in PvP wars must have their moves umpired via econ21.
We already fight our own battles - making our moves on the strategic map seems the next logical step. I think our system of providing lists of battles per turn could be extended to allow players to make movements. The cataclysm gave people a taste of greater freedom with their avatars and it would be good to continue this. This mechanic would also allow for rebellions to continue beyond the cataclysm.
We would need to clarify what armies people were allowed to move - although often I think that is self-evident (House armies, Imperial armies etc). Players on reserve duty or those without important moves could let the Chancellor move their avatar as usual.
OOC CA14.3: Players may “rebel” against Imperial authority and fight PvP battles. econ21 and TinCow will umpire what forces and resources they can command.
This option is to allow for things such as the Swabian civil war to continue. We have had mini-rebellions before - an earlier Hummel, Heinrich playing whack-a-Pope - but it has always been a bit odd having the Chancellor make decisions about what forces the rebels command and moving them. With this proposal, TC and I would decide what forces rebelling players can have and umpire their moves - and their opponents - as has been done during the catalcysm.
As to the resources of rebels, my inclination would be to look at the in-game economics and try to adhere to that. ie to compare the revenue of settlements controlled by rebels with the upkeep of their army, in order to work out what, if any, surplus they would have to recruit troops.
This option lives the way open for a move towards a civil war at some stage in the future if people want to push the game in that direction.
OOC CA14.4: No AI buildings may be destroyed.
Sometimes we have “raided” AI settlements, not intending to keep them, but destroying infrastructure. Potentially, this could cripple the AI. We could use the “add_money" command to simulate the benefits from such raiding, but still leave the buildings so we don’t hamstring the AI.
OOC CA14.5: a) All armies should consist of no more than 9 units (excluding the general), with proportions as in the Household Armies CA (2 cav, 3 missile, 4 infantry). Restrictions on historical army composition also apply. Avatars may combine armies.
b) There are 12 standing armies: Kaiser, Prinz, 8xDuke, 2xOutremer. The Chancellor may raise two more Imperial armies, but only if authorised by a Diet edict (which should state the purpose and objectives of these armies).
c) Crusading armies are exempt from this rule.
d) City garrisons cannot exceed the number of free militia possible; castle garrisons cannot exceed 5 units.
The aim of this rule is to increase the challenge without having to pump out endless uber AI armies. Even with the set backs from the cataclysm, I suspect the HRE will still be the dominant faction and we will be able to field full stacks that can thrash plausible AI forces. Having us work with smaller armies will simulate the effect of the cataclysm - and the oncoming plague - and make it easier to have a challenging game without spawning excessive numbers of AI armies. It will also make cooperation between players more important.
The restrictions on garrison sizes is a corollary to the limits on army size - we cannot simply stockpile huge forces in settlements. Unruly settlements will have to be garrisoned by characters and perhaps their armies too.
OOC CA14.6: The lord of a settlement (Count, Duke, King or Kaiser) can veto any units in their settlement being trained for a particular Elector or purpose. They must inform the Chancellor of this veto in advance.
This rule is to give players - particularly the Dukes who control castles - some control over the forces raised there. Who is the lord of a settlement would be determined similar to the start of the cataclysm: normally, Counts are lords of their settlements; Dukes/King lords of other settlements in their House/Outremer without Counts; the Kaiser is lord of Imperial settlements.
OOC CA14.7: Each Count or higher will have a feudal levy. These will be allocated by econ21 at each Diet and will consist of four or more units commensurate with the status and service of the player’s avatar. (Typically, a Count would have 1 mounted sergeant, 1 peasant archer or peasant crossbow, 1 sergeant spearmen and EITHER one DFK OR one feudal knight.)
With 12 standing armies, most players will have one. However, the levy provides some forces for those left out - they can combine with garrisons or standing armies to provide larger forces. The levies will also allow players with armies to field somewhat large forces than mere half stacks. More details at the end of this post.
Some thoughts on implentation of the feudal levy:
I was inspired by the cataclysm special rule for Stuperman to upgrade one unit per turn. So, the feudal levy for a new Count could be:
Initially (for new recruitable generals or 16 year old family members coming of age): 4 peasants (cost: 1 pt)
Each turn, the player has 1 pt to upgrade the peasant. It may be spent or accumulated. Costs for each unit are total costs - upgrades costs are the difference between total costs.
Up to TWO units may be upgraded along the ranged unit path:
Peasant archer (cost: 2pt) => Peasant crossbow (cost: 3pt) => Pavise crossbow (cost: 6 pt) => Hand gunner (cost: 7 pt) => Arquebusier (cost: 8pt)
Any number may be upgraded along the foot melee unit path:
Town militia (cost: 2pt) => Spear militia (cost: 3pt) => Spear sergeant (cost: 4pt) => armoured sergeant (cost: 5pt)
From the foot melee path, ONE armored sergeant may be upgraded to cavalry:
Merchant cavalry militia (cost: 7pt) => Mounted sergeant (cost: 9pt) => Mounted crossbow (cost: 11pt) => Reiters (cost: 13 pt)
From the foot melee, ONE armored sergeant may be upgraded to EITHER:
Dismounted Feudal knight (cost: 9pt) => Dismounted Imperial Knight (cost: 10pt) => Dismounted Gothic knight (cost: 11pt)
OR:
Mailed knight (cost: 11 pt) => Feudal knight (cost: 12pt) => Imperial knight (cost 13pt) => Gothic knight (14pt)
I will use the console to create these levies.
They may be retrained proportional to their cost (e.g. replacing half a spear sergeants costs 2pts). Retraining will typically dilute experience appropriately.
Weapons upgrades and armour upgrades may be purchased at one pt per increment.
I will keep track of players’ points.
For players with established avatars, I will typically identify some existing units at the next Diet to be defined as part of their levy. Thus a Duke - or even a veteran Count - would not have 4 peasants, but some more advanced units.
If a player acquires a particularly fun mercenary unit, this could be substituted for one of their retinue at my discretion.
Dukes and the Prinz could have to a retinue of 5, with an extra one of them being allowed to follow a knightly path.
The Kaiser could have a retinue of 6, with an extra of them being allowed to follow a knightly path.
TinCow has suggested that we try out CA14.2 and CA14.5 for about 5 turns to see if they are workable. I would be happy to propose them on a trial basis.
Privateerkev
11-19-2007, 18:15
I think all of these look good. These reflect the changes in the game that the cataclysm has spawned. They would all get a "yes" vote from me in their current form.
:2thumbsup:
Stuperman
11-19-2007, 18:37
I'll post when I get home and have more time, but I'm not sure I like all of these.
They all look good to me, but perhaps peasants as the starting levy is a bit too low? I'd say maybe two peasatn crossbowmen and two town militia or sergeant spearmen. Not completely worthless but pretty close.
I have one or two additional CA proposals, but they are based on plot events that have not happened yet. Thus, I will post them after the cataclysm is over, to keep from spoiling the events.
Thinking about it, it might be best if we discuss these and any related proposals this week, with perhaps a poll on Friday. That might take some of the pressure of the next Diet and also give people advance warning about what the rules will be after the cataclysm. I would like to keep game mechanics changes as far removed as possible from IC politicking.
They all look good to me, but perhaps peasants as the starting levy is a bit too low? I'd say maybe two peasant crossbowmen and two town militia or sergeant spearmen. Not completely worthless but pretty close.
I'm the kind of player who likes starting off in Dungeons and Dragons at level 1, where that first +1 longsword is so appreciated. So, my inclination is to pace out the rewards so to speak. That's also why I have made some of the upgrades to the better troops more costly than under Stuperman's special rule.
Most players will have an experienced avatar and so get better troops. For example, your recruitable will have 4 points by the time of the next Diet, so that all your men could be town militia or peasant archers.
BTW, I forgot to mention that one plus of the feudal levy rule would be to increase the importance of being a Count. Without being a Count or better, players would not have a levy.
FactionHeir
11-19-2007, 19:23
I agree with the majority of them, but there are several points that I disagree with and would cause me to vote against a CA:
14.2: I wouldn't go as far as every player going to download the save, make a move and upload it again. It would not only spam the uploader, but also be very time consuming and lead to problems with who ahs the save when, with everyone being able to reupload it. I would suggest that it be changed to every player being able to see the save and suggest via PM to the chancellor OOCly where they want to be moved by the end of turn (and this must be within their normal movement range, rather than cataclysm expanded movement range) and the chancellor is obliged to implement it to the best of his ability even if he disagrees with it ICly or OOCly, as this is the player's priviledge.
14.5: I believe we still have the 2 household armies rule per Duchy, so it would be 8x Duke. Also, I'd suggest a relaxing of the historical composition with us entering the late era and using smaller stacks. The AI afterall won't oblige to our rules, so if a player is only allowed a half stack and the AI happens to attack with a full stack and the player cannot retreat, it is suicide to be forced to fight the battle with 2 units of cavalry (including the BG as per rules). I'd say up to 4 cavalry including BG would be fairer, and the other regiments may be chosen at will, i.e. no limit on missile and infantry regiments, which historically were vastly abundant. I'd agree with artillery still limited to 1 piece though.
14.7: The levy sounds interesting, but I'm not sure whether it would still be fun this late in the game. Also, it is vastly expensive in my opinion, especially if you lose certain units. It would also be difficult to keep track of which unit was part of a levy after a battle if that player had his levy and his usual half stack. Retraining to proportional experience I am not a huge fan of, given the exorbitant costs of the units ->Retrain for almost full price and get the unit reduced to 1 bronze from 3 gold? No thanks, I'd rather the chancellor retrain it normally for me.
None of this is meant to be offensive in any way but to stimulate discussion of course.
FactionHeir
11-19-2007, 19:25
I'm the kind of player who likes starting off in Dungeons and Dragons at level 1, where that first +1 longsword is so appreciated. So, my inclination is to pace out the rewards so to speak. That's also why I have made some of the upgrades to the better troops more costly than under Stuperman's special rule.
I do agree with starting at base peasant level.
Most players will have an experienced avatar and so get better troops. For example, your recruitable will have 4 points by the time of the next Diet, so that all your men could be town militia or peasant archers.
BTW, I forgot to mention that one plus of the feudal levy rule would be to increase the importance of being a Count. Without being a Count or better, players would not have a levy.
Not quite. If Zim isn't made Count, then he'll have 0 by the time the diet comes.
I'm the kind of player who likes starting off in Dungeons and Dragons at level 1, where that first +1 longsword is so appreciated. So, my inclination is to pace out the rewards so to speak. That's also why I have made some of the upgrades to the better troops more costly than under Stuperman's special rule.
I'm the kind of player who joined a friend's game after all their levels were in the mid teens, so perhaps that's where we differ.
Maybe some sort of compromise with the levies to increase their usefulness? Can they not be included in the "only a half stack" rule? Then being a count and having a levy would bring a general's possible army up to 14, a significant advantage if stack unit limits are imposed.
Not quite. If Zim isn't made Count, then he'll have 0 by the time the diet comes.
Already count of Antwerp. :beam:
The real question is, will the Diet let me stay that way? Given how chaotic thigns are and a need for leaders, I have some hopes the answer will be "yes".
Ramses II CP
11-19-2007, 20:20
Personally I dislike the idea of a hard limit on army size in combination with a hard limit on composition. If you try to face the Poles with half the number of men they have and only two companies of cavalry you are going to have to exploit the AI or lose repeatedly. I don't necessarily object to losing, but I'm going to be prone to AI abuse if I'm constantly 2x outnumbered.
:egypt:
Stuperman
11-19-2007, 20:34
14.1 - I think it's a good Idea
14.2 - It'll get complex, and there will be problems, it seems to be hard enough to get people to submit orders, let alone DL the save, and make thier own move.
14.3 - good
14.4 - good.
14.5 - Bad, very bad. I understand that fullstack v fullstack we own the AI, but 9 units leaves 2 dismounted knights/elites, 3 spears, 2 missile, and 2 Cav. or something similar. This army won't beat anything, the intent of 'historical-ness' was to have balanced armies, but with such few men armies become inferior in all areas, i.e. you'll never fight a battle with infantry, missile, or cav superiority. I don't think that limiting the size of armies is a bad thing, but there is a fine line between flexible and impotent.
Another thought; anyone want to go up against the timturmids with a half stack?
14.6 - yes
14.7 - I really liked it, and think that it would be a good Idea, but I also think that the logistics of such a rules would be a nightmare.
Thanks, good feedback already.
I'll pick up on three things that have attraced most concern: players making their own moves; half stack armies; and feudal levies.
*****
On 14.2, Factionheir makes some good points. I can see that 20 players downloading and uploading the save every turn is a potential nightmare. How about:
OOC CA 14.2 (rev): At the start of each turn, the Chancellor will post an annual report on the last turn, including a save game. The report will list battles that could be fought this turn. Players will have 24 hours to fight these battles or suggest moves for their characters.
This is pretty close to what we do now, except that the Chancellor will not move your character for 24 hours, so you have time to check out alternative moves. As now, he will highlight battles this turn, but you will have to make the move on the map, as well as fight the battle, or not - as you prefer. I think this will give army commanders at little more autonomy and fun without adding that much to the burden of running the game. The 24 hour window is tight and could be extended to 48 hours depending on the situation. But I would like to make 24 hours the default position to keep things going and, if an offensive battle waits for a turn, it's not the end of the world.
*****
On 14.5, may be I was not clear - the half stack limits the strength of each of the 12 formal armies listed (the Household Armies, the Outremer, Prinz and Kaiser armies). Each of these will be controlled by one general. However, that general will also have their feudal levy, so they could have 14-16 units in their stack.
Plus a general could stack with another general. So they could bring in another feudal levy. Or even leave their feudal levy home and stack with a second formal army.
For really tough battles vs the Timurids, Polish all cav armies etc, we could still meet them with appropriate forces, it is just it would require more coordination and cooperation between players. Rather like how we took down the Mongols - with multiple armies all converging and working together. One player with a mega army could not do it alone. I think having this constraint would make the challenge more interesting.
On the army composition, let's forget about the Household Army CA specification. That was originally guidance, so we don't need to make it prescriptive now. We will be bound only by the Historial Army Composition rule. That means up to 4 cav (including the general) per 10 unit stack, not the 2 the CA originally mentioned.
So we can rephrase things:
OOC CA14.5 (rev): a) There can only be 14 formal armies in the game. There are 12 standing armies: Kaiser, Prinz, 8xDuke, 2xOutremer. The Chancellor may raise two more Imperial armies, but only if authorised by a Diet edict (which should state the purpose and objectives of these armies).
b) Each formal army should consist of no more than 9 units (excluding the general).
c) Battles should only involve armies, feudal levies or garrisons. They can freely stack or reinforce each other.
d) Garrisons should not exceed 5 units.
e) Crusading armies are exempt from this rule.
What this rephasing does is say that we can have 14 half stack armies, as well as our feudal levies. These should be our field forces that we fight battles with. I think imposing a bit more structure on the game will help with CA14.2 - players will know what troops are theirs - and it would also make the job of Chancellor a bit more challenging, as he cannot be so ad hoc.
One other point to make is that when - per CA14.1 - I use the console to beef up AI armies, I will also make their armies historical. Sometimes the AI will hit us with more hardcore formations of their own, but that just adds to the fun.
Here's the rough army composition I used to create armies at the start of the cataclysm, based on reading of miniature wargames army lists and a lot of interpreation (I am happy to amend them if people are more knowledgeable about the history):
French – 4 stacks
1 general
4 Lancers
2 Gendarmes
2 Crossbowmen
2 Aventuriers
2 Scots Guard
2 Armored Sergeants
2 Voulgier
1 bombard
1 Dismounted Chivalric Knights
1 Dismounted Noble Knights
Danes – 3 stacks
1 general
1 Huscarls
2 Chivalric Knights
1 Viking Raiders
1 Mounted crossbowmen
2 Crossbowmen
1 Norse Axemen
1 Norse Swordsmen
2 Norse Archers
1 Hand Gunner
3 Swordstaff Militia
2 Obudshaer
1 Dismounted Chivalric Knights
1 Dismounted Huscarls
Sicilians – 2 stacks
1 Late Bodyguard
2 Norman Knights
1 Mailed Knight
2 Turkopoles
4 Sicilian Muslim Archers
4 Italian Spear Militia
1 Pavise crossbowmen
1 Catalans
3 Sword and Buckler men
1 Dismounted Norman knight
Poles – 3 stacks
1 general
1 Polish Guard
1 Polish Knights
1 Polish Nobles
1 Polish Retainers
2 Polish Shooters
2 EE Spearmen
1 Woodsman
2 EE Crossbow Miltia
2 Lithuanian cavalry
1 Hand Gunners
3 Lithuanian archers
2 Dismounted Polish Knights
Hungarian - 4 stacks
1 Late Bodyguard
1 Royal Banderium
1 E Chivalric Knights
2 Hungarian Nobles
3 Magyar Cavalry
2 Pavise Spearmen
3 Bosnian Archers
1 Arquebusiers
1 Pavise Crossbow militia
2 Croat Axeman
1 Dismounted E Chivalric Knights
1 Bombard
Venetians – 2 stacks
1 general
3 Italian Spear Militia
3 Pavise Crossbow Militia
2 Dismounted Broken Lances
3 Venetian Heavy Infantry
2 Broken Lances
2 Italian MAA
2 Stradiots
1 Mounted Crossbowmen
1 Carrocio Standard V
Russians – 3 stacks
1 General
1 Tsars Guard
1 Dvor Cavalry
2 Druzhina
1 Kazaks
1 Boyar Sons
1 Cossack Cavalry
5 Eastern European Spearmen
2 Berdiche Axemen
3 Dismounted Dvor
1 Woodsmen
Egyptians – 3 stacks
1 General
1 Royal Mamluks
4 Mamluk archer
4 Turkomans
1 Arab Cavalry
1 Tabardariyya
3 Kurdish javelinmen
3 Desert Archers
2 Saracen Militia
*****
On the feudal levy, it may just be too much trouble to have the upgrading mechanic. I agree it is right that may be better built into a new PBM. Why not just leave the CA as it stands and forget about all the stuff on points in the spoiler? Reposting, what it said was:
OOC CA14.7: Each Count or higher will have a feudal levy. These will be allocated by econ21 at each Diet and will consist of four or more units commensurate with the status and service of the player’s avatar. (Typically, a Count would have 1 mounted sergeant, 1 peasant archer or peasant crossbow, 1 sergeant spearmen and EITHER one DFK OR one feudal knight.)
So I will just assign four or so units to be "yours" each Diet. I won't give you four peasants, promise. You will have to look after your boys for 10 turns and the Chancellor can be responsible for retraining. When another Diet comes around, you can PM me about upgrades, but they won't be points based - just made at my discretion.
FactionHeir
11-19-2007, 22:33
I can agree with the amended CAs :2thumbsup:
One suggestion for AI army composition you can read in the previous OOC thread where I posted a suggestion, based on my own experiences.
On a sidenote, will there be any change on the knight limit for army composition? Most HRE cavalry is knights and the nonspears (except 2 handers) are knights too. I was thinking possibly uncoupling knights and cavalry, and in that case lower the amount of (foot) knights in the army.
GeneralHankerchief
11-19-2007, 23:00
I am against imposing any limitations on HRE army size/composition aside from the Historical Armies imposition that has been in place since the beginning of the game.
From an RP perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for the leader of a country to restrict the amount of armies in the field, especially if he is taking losses. Besides, the amount of avatars present makes a good limit, considering our rules about captains and autoresolving. Also consider that there's a good chance that there will always be some generals, especially with the current influx of recruited bodyguards, that some of them will not be knights and thus not be able to lead armies.
I'm perfectly okay with pumping up the AI's strength as much as we can. But I see no point in doing that and restricting the forces at our disposal as much as we can.
Cecil XIX
11-19-2007, 23:42
I, for one, was every excited when I saw the mechanics for upgrading feudal levies. That's the kind of custimization that I like very much.
I am against imposing any limitations on HRE army size/composition aside from the Historical Armies imposition that has been in place since the beginning of the game.
From an RP perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for the leader of a country to restrict the amount of armies in the field, especially if he is taking losses.
Well, I would not argue from a RP perspective. The proposal is entirely an OOC one to increase the challenge without having to have spawn excessive AI forces. If you want to rationalise it IC, we could think of the plague - which is about to hit - and the after effect of the cataclysm. After the fall of the Roman Empire, European armies seemed to get much smaller - reflecting the political disintegration.
My feeling is that our players, with a full stack historical army, could only be defeated by consecutively fighting 3-4 full AI stacks. Now, we currently have 12 armies. If they are full stack, then that means spawning 40-50 AI stacks. And even then, we probably would still win as no Chancellor would put their armies into such consecutive fights - they would keep them up to strength. And the AI is so slothful, it would not hit us 3-4 times consecutively.
The cataclysm has increased the challenge both by spawning more AI forces, but also by limiting our recruitment. In Outremer, we could have kept squatting AI armies but what was getting to us was attrition. After the cataclysm, that break of attrition will be much reduced and we will be earning a lot of florins.
We could think of ways to limit recruitment (doubling all our purchase and upkeep costs would be an obvious one). But curtailing maximum army size might do a similar job. Working with 14 stack player armies will introduce an element of danger. I still think players will comfortably handle full AI stacks. But we will have to be a bit more careful. And they can always combine forces if needed.
I guess it comes down to personal preference - I would rather have challenge by fighting with a constrained force than have it by fighting over the top enemy forces. I'm more interested in playing a "thin red line" than battling "endless hordes".
I, for one, was every excited when I saw the mechanics for upgrading feudal levies. That's the kind of custimization that I like very much.
Well, when you PM me each Diet about upgrades, we could use that system for you!
GeneralHankerchief
11-20-2007, 00:43
Or alternatively, we could just gold-stack a lot of the enemy troops. That seems to be effective.
Ramses II CP
11-20-2007, 00:48
I really enjoy fighting high experience AI armies, ala the Mongols (Or the triple gold bar armies that looked so enticing in the Cataclysm). I recognize, however, that creating those is a lot of work for someone and certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. My reasoning is that 95% of the battles I fight break down to:
1. Engage infantry lines.
2. Flank infantry lines.
3. Pursue routers.
Insert: Overrun poorly protected archers/artillery when convenient.
Reducing my forces doesn't change that as much as upgrading enemy morale would.
Also, if I could suggest, at some point we may want a Chancellor or Kaiser who insists on 'modernizing' our armies by disbanding those highly reliable crossbowmen and archers for exclusively gunpowder troops. I don't know about anyone else, but I've very rarely used little guns in battle (Excluding cannons and culverins) and I often wonder if they aren't more of a hinderance than a help. The morale penalty could be offset by experience again, but there's that work load. :shame:
:egypt:
FactionHeir
11-20-2007, 01:19
I think econ will create the AI armies each diet adequately, i.e. not green, but not triple gold either. Single or double silver usually does the job in terms of preventing a full scale rout within minutes of engagement while not making the troops ridiculously stubborn and refuse to rout at all unless you have high dread.
I'd definitely say we should give the half stacks a try, as long as some restrictions can be lifted on composition.
OverKnight
11-20-2007, 01:35
We should also keep in mind that there are different skill levels when it comes to fighting. What might be an interesting battle for one person could be a hellacious rout for someone else. The goal would be to keep it interesting for everyone.
What I'm getting is that the Chancellor will still be a chief executive but there would also be a GM working with the save as well. His role would be more OOC, establishing game balance, handling rebellions and periodically throwing a surprise at the Chancellor. If the GM has some flexibility, with these new rules as guidelines rather than iron clad directives, I feel game immersion and challenge would benefit.
We must be careful not to throw so many new rules at the game that it grinds to a halt or makes the Chancellor position so complicated that few would dare to run for it.
GeneralHankerchief
11-20-2007, 01:36
-edit- Looks like OK beat me to the punch.
Also keep in mind that the Chancellor has to oversee all of this.
Sure, the Reich's shrank a bit recently. But if we get these restrictions on play passed, and get back to our pre-1300 size, it's going to be a nightmare for the Chancellor to follow all of the rules. At least, this is my opinion. I remember describing my only Chancellorship (the first one of KotR) as "relaxing." While it certainly won't be relaxing this time around, I don't want it to be impossible to keep track of everything easier. If we follow historical armies and only worry about the AI forces once per Diet session things would go much smoother.
Also, just going off a whim here, we need a different type of Chancellor. Every "game runner" (including the two most recent "Chancellor periods") has been active in KotR since its inception, with the exception of FactionHeir who joined about a month or two in. Come on, new guys! You can play too!
I don't know if it's just me, but even when we did have a half-stack only rule in WotS a couple of full-stack Consular Armies were allowed.
FactionHeir
11-20-2007, 01:41
Full stack armies are possible under econ's proposal, by merging two half stacks, i.e. having 2 generals in a stack.
Also, your levy is added onto the half stack, so stacks tend to be 14-17 units.
Btw, if no one dares to run for chancellor on the grounds it would be too difficult to follow, I'd gladly volunteer. :grin2:
AussieGiant
11-20-2007, 05:03
Hi All,
So...in light of the discussion my thoughts.
14.2 seems like a good compromise and gives a 24 hour window for people to place their avatar if they want.
The next two are not meant too sound harsh, Econ good thinking in principle but it is getting a little unwieldy already…and we are only talking about it.
14.5
scrap it entirely. Leave army composition in and if that is making it too easy then adjust and mandate that the composition is followed. By lowering various units types in the mandatory composition this will make things harder as required.
Opening up the discussion on the "number" is become difficult just reading about it.
With the ability to spawn Gold Chevron Full Armour upgrade armies this should be how we make the battles harder. It's on the AI side so it is easier to deal with and doesn't require any management once created.
With this in place then that follows up on:
14.7
scrap it also. Again too difficult to keep up with and monitor. We now would have multiple rules governing the merging and unmerging of units. This CA in my view is an extension on 14.5 as it is simply providing a mechanism to temporarily boost the under sized half stacks.
Again, econ, your ability to manage this is a credit to you but I would stick with the current legislation on army composition and modify that rather than introduce more rules.
Likewise in 14.1, instead of 4 FULLY upgrade AI armies per Chancellorship you could do 6 or even 8...that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons in my view.
so…
14.1 yes with the ability to add more as necessary.
14.2 good
14.3 good
14.4 good
14.5 scrap, 14.1 will be adjusted to create a competitive AI army list.
14.6 good
14.7 scrap, if 14.1 is creating enough pressure then a levy system is not needed.
AussieGiant
11-20-2007, 05:11
I would run for Chancellor in a flash if I could.
But I wont be back until the 18th of December...work is really preventing me from giving it a shot...and could you imagine a chancellorship with Arnold at the helm...
as Patrick Harper from the Sharpe series would say.
God save Ireland!!
Even if I could run...the level of legislation is becoming so large it would detract from the experience and fun in my view...and that should never be even a background consideration for people not to run as chancellor.
Having the same OOC people do it is not ideal in my view.
Factionheir's response is exactly what should not be happening...not that I have a problem that he wants to run...but the fact he or any of us could have that thought means we've probably gone too far already.
FH, you know what I mean? You should run, but if you or even some of the veteran players are aware that things are that complex, then it's becoming an issue. And I believe we shouldn't have that issue.
Stuperman
11-20-2007, 05:44
I've been thinking of running for a while now, I admit it is getting rather complex, Perhaps we should scrap the old constitution and start anew. With potentially a new house, some of the other Major modifiers econ suggested, and issues with recruitable generals, maybe a new document is in order, although it would only be right to put it to a vote.
Hmmm..after my one day run for Duke(with the Kaiser's support no less), is this something else I could run a losing race for? ~;)
Cecil XIX
11-20-2007, 05:57
If it weren't for the fact that Becker has absolutely no interest in the Job, I'd probably run for Chancellor at some point. Hopefully I'll do that with the next guy.
Privateerkev
11-20-2007, 06:04
Since we're talking about post-cataclysm mechanics here, what do people think about OOC legislation to handle the Black Death? Something simple that dictates that avatars must be out of settlements one turn before the plague hits. Now I probably won't have an avatar so this won't effect me. But most of you will.
This would be OOC because it would be regardless of who was Chancellor and regardless of political animosity. Unless we want to leave open the possibility of having the Chancellor throwing their enemies into plague ridden cities... :D
As for chancellor, the big reason why I won't do it is because I do not believe I could give the time to it that all of you deserve. The lesser reason has to do with what AG said. Though it's not the legislation that would make it cumbersome for me.
It's the immense amount of politicking over every single move. I'm afraid that if I didn't clear every single decision between 5 or 6 powerful characters, I'd get my character impeached. Maybe the reality of being Chancellor is quite different but that is my perception from the outside looking in. I just don't want to deal with the massive influx of PM's... :thumbsdown:
AussieGiant
11-20-2007, 06:23
Come on PK...5 or 6 characters...what is this?
a mafia family or a consitutional monarchy? :beam:
You would do a great job. You certainly could deal with all the law issues. You'd just have to keep up with the PM issue, which OK has said is quite large, and I think that is an understatement.
Give it a go. And elecotor could be chancellor...in fact it would be a great change of pace.
Privateerkev
11-20-2007, 06:32
Come on PK...5 or 6 characters...what is this?
a mafia family or a consitutional monarchy? :beam:
You would do a great job. You certainly could deal with all the law issues. You'd just have to keep up with the PM issue, which OK has said is quite large, and I think that is an understatement.
Give it a go. And elecotor could be chancellor...in fact it would be a great change of pace.
I'm just acknowledging the power structure of the game. The way I see things, the people that have "emergency session" power can bog the chancellor down with tons of paperwork and requests. And the chancellor could only ignore them at their peril. Look at Hummel...
I appreciate your vote of confidence. Though after today's performance in the OOC thread, my confidence at being able to "deal with all the law issues" has take quite a hit. :laugh4:
I lost my chance at being "lord of charter interpretation". That makes me unworthy... :bow:
Another thing is that I do not believe Alfgarda is "electable". Jan was not the most popular avatar. In fact he was absolutely polarizing. You either wished he was on your side because he was such a loyal and outspoken ally or you wished he would get hit by a bus because he was such an annoying opponent. Alfgarda will have that baggage.
Unless I take either Lothar's or Zirn's second oldest sons which I have given a little bit of thought to. I still have some time to mull that over. That still wouldn't solve my time problem. I'm in my third semester of my Masters and I'm scared that if I played as chancellor, I'd just have to retire like WL did. And I don't want to put the game through that. :no:
AussieGiant
11-20-2007, 06:58
I hear you about the semester issue and the master degree. That is a time problem by definition.
emergency session characters clearly need some TLC. But it would be a great thing to at least be Chancellor once.
Alfgarda could be electable...there is always a chance. Your avatar certainly was as you describe, and you were consistent in his portrayal.
All I can say is that OK's feedback to me via PM clearly shows a need for considerable time allocation to do a good job.
However, you could pull an Igno...now that would be great!!!
Privateerkev
11-20-2007, 07:10
I hear you about the semester issue and the master degree. That is a time problem by definition.
Tell me about it. I don't have spare time. I can only "steal" time from things I should be doing. :book:
emergency session characters clearly need some TLC. But it would be a great thing to at least be Chancellor once.
I would first have to get an avatar that didn't hate half of the emergency session characters. I imagine Lothar and Arnold would not be amused finding themselves on leaky boats in the Mediterranean. :no:
An Alfgarda Chancellorship has the potential to be very very exciting and then it would probably end quite abruptly. :laugh4:
Alfgarda could be electable...there is always a chance. Your avatar certainly was as you describe, and you were consistent in his portrayal.
I didn't even know generic electors could be Chancellor. Might be one of those 250 year old laws we can ignore... ;)
As for Jan, he lived by the old adage, "The point is to have all the good people like you and all the evil people hate you." :2thumbsup:
All I can say is that OK's feedback to me via PM clearly shows a need for considerable time allocation to do a good job.
Yeah, from Jan's interactions with Matthias, I could tell OK was swamped with PM's. Jan tried to go easy on him "most" of the time. ^^
However, you could pull an Igno...now that would be great!!!
If I played Chancellor the way I play my SP games, I would be impeached after the first turn. I'm a big time turtler. :laugh4:
I would make the Reich swim in florins but all of the players would be bored out of their skulls. :yes:
I would like to make a few general comments from my perspective as the Cataclysm GM.
This thing is an unbelievable amount of work. I am not joking. I have to actually schedule time during the week to get it done and even then it continues to take far more time than I anticipate. Now, that's not a huge problem because (1) I created the system myself and am entirely responsible for the amount of time it consumes and (2) it has a specific limited duration and I know exactly when it will be over. I also am very well aware that people like the freedom this system has given them a great deal. Some of the above proposed rule changes are designed to carry over that freedom into the rest of the game. I have some words of warning about this.
First, beware of increasing the time demands on the Chancellor. While it is voluntary, that position is a necessary part of the game and someone has to do it. It already involves a good amount of work in keeping the armies balanced, allocating battles, setting proper build queues, etc. Every little bit that we increase the complexity will make the position less enjoyable to hold, decrease the number of people who have the time and desire to do it, and slow down the game. My phase of the Cataclysm has been fun, without a doubt, but it has been SLOW. I think many people would be very annoyed if this slow pace continued for the rest of the game. We need to find ways to increase freedom that do not greatly hinder the Chancellor.
Second, beware of creating arbitrary limits in the name of balance or in the belief that they are balanced. I have developed several specific rules on recruitment and economics for the cataclysm. They are nice and fun and I think they have worked well enough. However, you need to all be aware that they are completely broken. There is nothing remotely balanced about them at all. I have maintained balance by making ridiculous alterations both to the players and the AI with my GM-bestowed powers of omnipotence. Without my active involvement in tweaking things on both sides every single turn, the Catalcysm system would not work even remotely well. If you start creating similar rules for KOTR, but do not have someone there who can make sure it balances out in the end, the game will develop some serious problems.
The most important thing that I have learned from KOTR and the Cataclysm is that freedom breathes life into the game, but rule complexity chokes it to death. I would strongly urge that we do NOT adopt any rules that will make the Chancellor's role more complex or that will slow down the game. If we want to do something that will increase complexity, we should simultaneously find a way to streamline another area so that the overall duties do not increase. The same applies to game speed. If we adopt rules that slow the game down, we should change other rules so that other aspects speed up.
If we cannot figure out a way to do this without completely re-writing the rules from the ground up, then we either need to keep playing KOTR the way it is, or declare it over and start a new game with a new rule system.
AussieGiant
11-20-2007, 15:35
You summed up my global policy about the game from day one very well TC.
And by the way TC, do you have a sister that acts like you, thinks like you but is not you??
Cause if you do...and I don't care if she's got a boyfriend I HAVE TO MEET HER!!
Fantastic post and hence my reluctance to change anything really except have those triple gold chevron full armour upgraded armies wondering around.
Ramses II CP
11-20-2007, 15:43
I think Tincow just said KISS:
Keep it simple, stupid.
Sounds like smart policy to me.
:egypt:
If we cannot figure out a way to do this without completely re-writing the rules from the ground up, then we either need to keep playing KOTR the way it is, or declare it over and start a new game with a new rule system.
I think the revisions I've suggested are relatively minor and simple - I don't think they amount to a re-write from the ground-up. I must admit Stuperman's idea about a full rules re-write filled me with dread.
One good thing about these PBMs is how we let the rules change over time. This game built on the KotR trial, which built on WotS. The Cataclysm is rather like the KotR trial in that it has given a radical change in game mechanics. I think it would be good to incorporate some of the good things about that - the freedom, the challenge - into the normal rules. But as you say, we need to keep an eye on the issues of speed and simplicity - those are the things that killed the full blown decentralisation of the KotR trial.
Also, I think we are in part now trialling ideas for a new game. IMO, we have not yet cracked a couple of key issues in PBM design - how to keep it challenging; and how to make sure every player has their fair share of battles. The Cataclysm mechanics did provide solutions to those problems, albeit at a great and unsustainable cost in terms of TC's time. I think limits on army size - plus spawning AI armies - may be a big part of the solution to the challenge. And I think having multiple modest armies and feudal levies may be the way to give all players some battles (as opposed to the Chancellor or Dukes doing everything thing with half a dozen uber armies).
I think it is worth testing those ideas - even if just for 5 turns - rather than starting a new game, because the cost of testing them in KotR would be low whereas we are not ready to let the game die just yet.
*****
We need to find ways to increase freedom that do not greatly hinder the Chancellor....I would strongly urge that we do NOT adopt any rules that will make the Chancellor's role more complex or that will slow down the game.
I think the only proposal in this thread that threatens a big increase in the Chancellor's workload and a slowdown is CA14.2. By allowing people the freedom to specify moves for their characters we increase the burden the Chancellor to implement those orders and potentially slow the game down.
However, on the issue of speed, I don't think a 24 hour window between posting a new turn save and making character moves will markedly slow the game down. I know I got criticised for whizzing through my turns too quickly as Henry and so as Elberhard, I promised a day or two interval between turns to give people time to catch up with what was going on. We almost always have battles each turn and if that 24 orders window is also the window to fight your battle, then there won't be a further delay.
On the issue of complexity, that is why I initially suggested that players could download the save and make the moves themselves. That saves the Chancellor having to print out or note PMs, then bring that info to the save. I guess the Chancellor can just tell players to go ahead, download the save and make the move.
If we adopt rules that slow the game down, we should change other rules so that other aspects speed up.
I think we have been shifting from a 48 hour window to fight battles to a 24 hour window, which is a good thing. I don't think waiting for players to fight battles causes big delays for KotR - we've gotten pretty good at sticking to deadlines and pressing on if some can't meet them.
The main thing that could slow the game down is a Chancellor who gets very busy and unable to keep the game going at a decent pace. This is what dragged WotS down at the end under Lucjan and caused problems for KotR with a couple of Chancellors. TC's phase of the Cataclysm has not felt slow to me because he posts a new turn within a day or two of everyone fighting their battles. I suggest:
OOC CA 14.8: Chancellors should aim to post annual reports and savegames within 48 hours of the deadline for fighting all battles (offensive or defensive). Chancellors who fail to do this three times may be subject to an OOC impeachment vote.
I think this CA just makes explicit the standards we have been working to. It's softly worded ("aim to"; "may be subject"), so we can be sensitive to Chancellor's reasonable OOC issues.
*****
Second, beware of creating arbitrary limits in the name of balance or in the belief that they are balanced. ... Without my active involvement in tweaking things on both sides every single turn, the Catalcysm system would not work even remotely well. If you start creating similar rules for KOTR, but do not have someone there who can make sure it balances out in the end, the game will develop some serious problems.
One reason why I would like limits on army sizes is that it will make it is easier to balance the CA14.1 tweaks to the AI. I will have a rough idea of what, say, Franconia can come up with - roughly a full stack of Household armes, with one or at most two full stacks provided by the Chancellor and Kaiser/Prinz, plus some feudal levies. I would then know that, say 4 Polish full stacks and 4 Russian full stacks created at a Diet should provide a decent challenge. If there are no limits on the number or size of the player armies, it is harder for me to balance - I would just be working one side of the equation.
But, as I said, I think this is mainly an aesthetic thing. I would rather create modest AI forces every 10 turns and tighten the constraints players work under than every other turn have to spawn monster all gold AI armies. The intensity of the latter is fine for the cataclysm when we are under invasion, but I suspect it would get old under normal play. It would be like the endless full stack battles that went on in WotS and got some players fed up with the Very Hard campaign difficulty setting ("Another heroic victory... throw the medal onto the pile...").
I recall some of the most fun and challenging WotS battles were when we had Roman half stacks bumbling into full stack Carthies, Macedonians, Egyptians and Seleucids. Mount Suribachi could testify to that. But these were not uber 9 chevron armies - they were just regular full stacks. So our Romans were not fighting supermen, but they were just being stretched and outnumbered.
*****
Going back to reducing complexity: I had a thought about how to implement the feudal levy so that it does not cause confusion. Every Diet, I could post screenshots of people's levy for information and I could reorder the stacks so the levy units were the first ones in their avatar's stack.
Then it should be fairly easy for players and the Chancellor to keep track of what are avatar's feudal levies - they would be the first four units in their stack (five for Dukes/Prinz).
Stuperman
11-20-2007, 18:56
I think you are right econ, a full re-write of the rules is probably a bit much.
I like the idea of spawning several large enemy stacks every diet session, but if we really want to spread the battles around, then perhaps we should also spawn small rebel stacks in each province (or increase the natural spawn rate) this would give many lesser generals; battles to fight, a chance to exp-up their feudal levies, a chance to gain some traits.
The idea of the feudal levies is sounding more and more appealing to me although I still am doubtful. I think starting with 4 peasants is a little weak, maybe town militia and peasant archers.
My other concerns are with keeping track of everyone's wealth, the actual process of upgrading everyone, and the work/reward ratio. How much is this going to bring to the game? especially if it adds hours and hours of work to the job of chancellor?
I think the revisions I've suggested are relatively minor and simple - I don't think they amount to a re-write from the ground-up. I must admit Stuperman's idea about a full rules re-write filled me with dread.
It was not my intention to say that your CAs were re-writing the rules from the ground up. I was simply making a general observation about the game. Re-writing from the ground up is stuff like I sent you last week. By comparison, even the most radical of the above CAs are simply a minor to moderate change.
I think limits on army size - plus spawning AI armies - may be a big part of the solution to the challenge. And I think having multiple modest armies and feudal levies may be the way to give all players some battles (as opposed to the Chancellor or Dukes doing everything thing with half a dozen uber armies).
I think it is worth testing those ideas - even if just for 5 turns - rather than starting a new game, because the cost of testing them in KotR would be low whereas we are not ready to let the game die just yet.
I agree. My concern about the army size CA is not that it would make the game more complex or slow it down. If anything, it's the perfect example of how to make significant changes to the gameplay without increasing the burden on the players. My concern about army size is simply that it will be too hard. Thus, I fully support a 5 turn trial period to figure it out.
Also, I was not speaking about any of your legislation at all in my "arbitrary limits" paragraph. That was more a cautionary tale for everyone based on my economic, recruitment, and movement rules, which I should really rename "guidelines."
Going back to reducing complexity: I had a thought about how to implement the feudal levy so that it does not cause confusion. Every Diet, I could post screenshots of people's levy for information and I could reorder the stacks so the levy units were the first ones in their avatar's stack.
Then it should be fairly easy for players and the Chancellor to keep track of what are avatar's feudal levies - they would be the first four units in their stack (five for Dukes/Prinz).
The levies idea intrigues me, but I am worried about the complexity. That is much less of a problem if you truly can do it all yourself, but I know there are limits on your time as well. I don't want the solution to all of our time and complexity problems to become 'let econ21 deal with it.' That's just unfair. You're a player as well as a the TR mod and KOTR overseer. We need to make sure we don't overwhelm you while we are trying to spare ourselves.
I also question how much value this will bring to the game in comparison to the costs in time and complexity. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have not personally found the unit recruitment and allocation system in the Cataclysm to be particularly fun. It is useful because it makes people struggle for resources, but I think it is the struggle itself that provides the most entertainment, not necessarily the intricacies of army customization. Most of the large armies that have been built have migrated towards a normal balance anyway, proving that what people want is really what we also give them in under the normal KOTR rules. Thus, minor tweaking of units seems to me to be of low benefit in comparison to the time and energy it will eat up.
That said, I do see a major potential in your levy idea: ownership. I get the sense that people really, really like "owning" things in the cataclysm. They like being able to look at the map and say "That city and that army are mine. No one else can take them away from me against my will unless they pry them from my cold dead hands." That gives people a great deal of incentive to protect their assets and accumulate more. It is the basic building block of a true balance of power and a proper political system. While basic KOTR rules can "give" people Counties, I doubt many of us have really identified with them to a great extent.
I put a lot of effort into making Lothar care about Florence, but at the end of the day, the person behind Lothar (me) didn't really give two florins what happened to it. No matter how much I wrote about it IC, the place never really felt like 'mine.' In contrast, being able to directly and materially draw on the resources of all of Bavaria has made me rabidly passionate about it. I let some of Bavarian cities fall early without a fight because I could justify it IC and it needed to be done to achieve the post-cataclysm status I am working towards. In contrast, I just recently stuck Lothar in Milan in a situation where he might very much die. I'm not sure I can beat that stack, but I simply couldn't stand the thought of letting it go without a fight when I had an army to fight with. At the same time, I have been agonizing about what to do with Nuremburg. I don't have enough electors or armies to pacify the place and keep it that way. It's tearing me up every time I have to roll a die to see which building gets knocked down, because I know those are my personal resources that are going down the drain. If this were the normal game, I would just shrug and add the building back to the construction queue, because its loss would have no material impact on me as a player.
If we can somehow find a way to continue this sense of ownership, perhaps we can make people more invested in the game. Many of us are invested in our characters themselves because we spend a lot of time creating their backstories and having them climb the political ladder. However, few of us care about the actual individual armies or cities. We may say so IC, but did any of really care OOC when Rome was lost? I suspect not. I think there is a lot of room to explore ownership via armies and provinces. It may require new rules that are too radical for KOTR, but the levy idea in general is a small step in that direction and for that reason alone I am willing to give it a try. Again, I would urge a trial period, but it would be an interesting thing to test.
FactionHeir
11-20-2007, 19:52
I didn't care when Rome was lost. I did when its huge cathedral was knocked down though. Hans had it built after all :grin:
You make very good points regarding those factors, in terms of ownership and complexity of levy.
Regarding the levy, putting those units as first few in the stack doesn't mean it is easy to discern them at the end of battle. Any unit that was lost completely in the battle and is healed up afterwards will appear at the end of the stack after the battle. If you lose several units, then you cannot be sure which is which. You could of course say that you can keep track of it via in-battle screenshots, but these are also not always accurate as regrouping units can shift their positions. Thus, its incredibly difficult to mark them.
Still, they are a good idea, and I think they should be subject to your own time constraints and will rather than being forced upon you. So if you decide that feudal levies are taking too much of your time, we can just abandon the idea and go with the units left of the levy but no longer replace them.
That said, I do see a major potential in your levy idea: ownership. I get the sense that people really, really like "owning" things in the cataclysm. They like being able to look at the map and say "That city and that army are mine. No one else can take them away from me against my will unless they pry them from my cold dead hands." That gives people a great deal of incentive to protect their assets and accumulate more. It is the basic building block of a true balance of power and a proper political system. While basic KOTR rules can "give" people Counties, I doubt many of us have really identified with them to a great extent.
I can't speak for how it would have been precataclysm, since I just joined, but I can say that during it the system TCset up makes a big difference. When I was first put in charge of Antwerp, I thought it was great, but I didn't strongly identify with the city, and wrote a back story having my character coming from elsewhere.
Then when Tincow posted this past turn, and I saw my character's options and resources (including florins per turn) limited entirely in terms of my County it made a huge difference. I became determined to defend it, and to try to prepare to get deguerra's county(Bruges) back, to protect my and my allies resources.
In one day I became so attached to my county I hoped very strongly that Hummel would not order me to abandon it and join him in the south, and prepared arguments to try to change his mind if he did. This was all a result of a feeling of ownership that would be lacking if if my resources and armies came entirely from the Chancelor. Even now I'm planning on the best way to face the French army that will be bearing down on Antwerp after it takes Bruges, and worrying about what the many Danish stacks in Franconia are up to.
I think that feudal levies will contribute a feeling of ownership after the cataclysm. :yes:
I don't suppose those armoured and mounted sergeants my guy spawned with can be part of my levy? I've grown attached to them as well, as an aspect of my background story that showed up ingame. I'll start with points in the hole if neccessary. :clown:
P.S. If the levy system is tried and a points system used for it, I'll gladly make some charts and keep track of everyone's points, if it makes things easier for Econ21 or the Chancellor.
For those who weren't around last year when we did the KOTR test game, here are links to the relevant threads. The KOTR test was actually originally designed to emphasize individual ownership of every aspect of the game. As you can see, it bogged down in complexity very, very quickly. One rule I learned from it: If you have to post an Excel spreadsheet every turn just to make the game make sense, it's too complex.
Imperial Orders Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73095) - Main example of how complexity causes problems.
Rules Thread and Discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72711)
OOC Discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73107) - Us talking about what was and was not working.
IC Discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73094) - Equivalent of the Diet
That OOC thread was particularly interesting to me as someone who didn't get in on the ground floor.
I can still help out if the points system is used, but I'd like to say I prefer the other idea, where Econ determines a good four units for each levy.
For those who weren't around last year when we did the KOTR test game, here are links to the relevant threads. The KOTR test was actually originally designed to emphasize individual ownership of every aspect of the game. As you can see, it bogged down in complexity very, very quickly. One rule I learned from it: If you have to post an Excel spreadsheet every turn just to make the game make sense, it's too complex.
Imperial Orders Thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73095) - Main example of how complexity causes problems.
Rules Thread and Discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72711)
OOC Discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73107) - Us talking about what was and was not working.
IC Discussion (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73094) - Equivalent of the Diet
If CA14.7 passes, at the next Diet, I will allocate feudal levies to players who are lords of a settlement. They will be commensurate with the lord's age and experience.
At subsequent Diets, there will be scope to upgrade levies. For players who want it, I will implement a points based system. For the others, we can agree something less complicated and formal.
Given that there was some expression of interest in the points based system, I've given it a bit more thought. By my maths, the points I proposed should give 61 year old Counts fully upgraded levies, so they will be able to die happy.
Upgrade paths (costs)
3^ANY |ONE MAX|TWO MAX|EITHER|OR
3^Spear|Cavalry (Non-knightly)|Missile|Foot knight|Knight
7^Peasant (1)|Peasant (1)|Peasant (1)|Peasant (1)|Peasant (1)
7^Town militia (2)|Town militia (2)|Peasant Archer (2)|Town militia (2)|Town militia (2)
7^Spear militia (3)|Spear militia (3)|Peasant Crossbow (3)|Spear militia (3)|Spear militia (3)
7^Spear Sergeant (4)|Spear Sergeant (4)|Pavise Crossbow (6)|Spear Sergeant (4)|Spear Sergeant (4)
7^Armoured Sergeant (5)|Armoured Sergeant (5)|Handgunner (7)|Armoured Sergeant (5)|Armoured Sergeant (5)
7^|Merchant Cavalry (7)|Arquebusier (8)|DFK (9)|Merchant Cavalry (7)
7^|Mounted Sergeant (9)||DIK (10)|Mounted Sergeant (9)
7^|Mounted Crossbow (11)||DGK (11)|Mailed knight (11)
7^|Reiters (12)|||Feudal Knight (12)
7^||||Imperial Knight (13)
7^||||Gothic Knight (14)
Note: high lords may have TWO knight class units; the Kaiser THREE.
Explanatory notes
In order to be eligible for a feudal levy, you must be lord of a settlement.
Counts and Dukes are lords of the settlements they govern. The Prinz and Kaiser are always lords.
If you cease being a lord, your levy is disbanded at the next Diet. (This represents the loss of the social and economic basis of your levy).
Lords are entitled to four units in a feudal levy. High lords (Dukes, King of Outremer, Prinz) are entitled to five; the Kaiser to six.
When players first become lords, they start off with a feudal levy of four peasants. Every Diet, a lord is given 10 points they may “spend” those points to upgrade their units (high lords are given 13 points; the Kaiser 15). The cost of the upgrade is the difference in the cost of the two units. Armor or weapon upgrades cost one point per upgrade per unit.
Steps on upgrade paths may be skipped if points allow (so a Feudal knight could be upgraded straight to Gothic). But units may only be upgraded to a unit on the same path. (e.g. an archer cannot be upgraded to a knight.)
Units can be retrained at no extra cost: sacrifice will be rewarded.
But lost units are replaced by peasants - look after your men.
FactionHeir
11-21-2007, 00:24
A few questions on your new levy system:
Cavalry - One max
Knights - One max
Since according to our current system, mounted knights count as both knights AND cavalry, how is that to be read?
DGK - I thought there was a general murmur not to implement them, so that should be Twohanders?
Retraining still evens out experience or retrain at max?
Also, regarding my earlier point on the half-stack armies, will the restriction on mounted knights = cavalry+knight be lifted, so that they count as cavalry only and in turn the knight limit per army can be slightly reduced?
Ramses II CP
11-21-2007, 01:26
Regarding tracking the levies, don't the post battle troops stats stay in order without regard to annihilated units? So if you had 4 units in your levy and they were top left-most in your stack wouldn't they be the first four in the list?
I'm just guessing at that because I've never paid close attention, but it feels right. (Maybe I should go test it before I post? Duh!)
:egypt:
I could not get a destroyed unit to recover, but destroyed and unrecovered units do stay in order in the post game stats list.
Cavalry - One max
Knights - One max
Since according to our current system, mounted knights count as both knights AND cavalry, how is that to be read?
Cavalry here means non-knightly cavalry - quintessentially, mounted sergeants.
DGK - I thought there was a general murmur not to implement them, so that should be Twohanders?
I think I can spawn them using the console? But to be honest, it's just a flavour thing - from the stats, I see no point anyone upgrading DFK.
Retraining still evens out experience or retrain at max?
Retraining will dilute experience. With all the fuss about triple gold armies, I am starting to wonder if the effects of experience were as weak as I thought when I allowed retraining. Basically I will disband the unit and create a new one with the console.
Also, regarding my earlier point on the half-stack armies, will the restriction on mounted knights = cavalry+knight be lifted, so that they count as cavalry only and in turn the knight limit per army can be slightly reduced?
The present system is because knights historically nearly all had horses. The way to think about it is that our foot knights are just ones which have chosen to fight dismounted. So to keep the armies to historical proportions, it makes sense to cap the total number of knights - mounted plus foot. With a 14 unit stack (army plus feudal levy), you could have 6 knights including your general. I think that's enough - nearly half your army.
In the spoiler, there's a miniature wargames army list for a medieval German army - you can see knights would form a substantial chunk, but only a minority. (It's not stated, but in the rules they would have the option to dismount - it's sad M2TW took away the dismounting feature of MTW).
83. LATER MEDIEVAL GERMAN: EARLY 14TH TO LATE 15TH
The armies of the Holy Roman Empire made extensive use of mercenaries in its countless wars with its neighbors. The German army had to be versatile, it fought so many different types of enemies. To this end, the Emperors employed Hungarians, Low Countrymen, Italians, various pikemen and, later on, handgunners.
Tactically, the Germans can play a very intricate game of enticing an enemy to attack and then counter-charging him with numbers of knights when the enemy is unsupported or disordered. Use the feudal foot, in mixed weapon units, to anchor a flank. The center and other flank can be kept open for flanking maneuvers, skirmishing and deadly charges by the German knights.
This is a good army for any level of player.
1-5 CiC/Generals, FPC Veteran, L/Sh, 3 @ 58/43
Any -Downgrade to Warriors(T) @ -1
4-8 Feudal Knights, FPC Veteran, L/Sh, 3 @ 18
4-12 German Knights, FPC Warriors(T), L/Sh, 3 @ 17
-4 Mounted Crossbowmen, HC Warriors(T), CB, 3 @ 10
-8 Hungarian Cavalry, SC Warriors, B/Sh, 2 @ 4
6-30 Feudal Foot, LAI Poor(T), 1/2 Hal/Pa, 1/2 LSp or CB/Pa, 4
@ 5
-4 Halberdiers, LAI Warriors(T), Hal, 4 @ 5
4-16 Crossbowmen, HI Warriors(T), CB/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
-8 Skirmishers, SI Warriors(T), CB, 2 @ 2
-2 Organ Guns, ARTY Warriors, 3 crew @ 13
After Mid-15th
-12 Pikemen, LAI Warriors(T), Pike, 4 @ 5
-4 -Upgrade to HI @ +1
4-12 Handgunners, HI Warriors(T), HG/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
-2 Bombard, ARTY Warriors, 4 crew @ 16
Note: Any knights may use Wedge. Feudal foot may be in mixed weapon units.
AussieGiant
11-21-2007, 02:36
Ahh,
Econ's post takes me back to my history classes at uni.
The migration from fuedal tactics to pike and shot tactics where a wonderful period of discussion in a few of our lectures.
Cecil XIX
11-21-2007, 04:11
Tincow's right on the money about ownership, though it's quite easy to get attached the way the rules were pre-cataclysm. I got attached to Prague by researching 'Mahren', and then deciding that I wanted Prague to excel at something. Knowing something that makes your city special really gives you a sense of commitment, even if it's just that your militia are the best armored in the Reich. I also think an increased sense of ownership would be more realistic, too. I believe people were most loyal to the guy directly above him, not the guy at the top.
I'm also very fond of this levy system, for those very reason.
AussieGiant
11-21-2007, 04:29
Hey Cecil,
Are you going to respond to Bane? :balloon2:
Thinking a bit more about the wording of the half-stack CA, I am wondering if it is too restrictive.
First off, requiring the Chancellor to get an edict to raise an army is a nice idea BUT the Chancellor is unknown at the time we propose Edicts so it won't really work.
Second, I am not sure we need to limit ourselves to 2 Imperial armies. That may be good for the challenge, but goes against my idea to try to give everyone a chance to fight battles. And it may be cruel post-cataclysm to take away a player's toys - the units they have acquired - just because they don't get one of the limited number of formal armies.
Third, we should allow for small detachments - stacks of 6 units or less - to fight battles against smaller enemy forces when our formal armies are far away.
Re-reading the Charter, I was surprised to read article 6.4 which already has some of the ideas about formalising armies and rotating commands that I was wanting to encourage:
6.4 For field armies of seven or more units (including the general), the Chancellor must appoint an “army commander”. The army commander must be a “knight”. Army commanders are appointed for the duration of the Imperial Diet session (10 turn intervals). The post is expected to be rotating. Army commanders can decide what to do with prisoners after battle. They can be dismissed by Chancellors, but must be informed of this.
We have not adhered to this provision very closely, but I think it would be characterful to have formalisation like "Lorenz Zirn, Commander, 2nd Imperial Army" etc.
So I propose simplifying the wording of the half stack rule to:
OOC CA14.5 (rev MkII): Armies should consist of no more than 9 units plus a general. They can only stack with or enter battle with other armies, feudal levies or garrisons. Garrisons should not exceed 5 units. Crusading armies are exempt from this rule. This rule will be trialled for 5 turns.
Note: the Reich's armies are those created by the Chancellor under article 6.4, plus the Household Armies, the Armies of Outremer, of the Kaiser and of the Prinz.
This wording limits our formal armies to half stacks and means we cannot break that limit by having them fight alongside extra units unless they are player controlled (other armies or levies) or they are garrions.
But the rule does not limit the number of Imperial armies a Chancellor can create, nor does it prevent him setting up smaller battles that don't involve formal armies. (Article 6.4 says any field army of 7 or more units must be an army - that's the wriggle room that has allowed non-knights to fight battles, by leading stacks of 6 or less).
If the rule is passed, after 5 turns, we will discuss it in the OOC thread and keep it, drop it or vote on it depending on the balance of opinion.
FactionHeir
11-21-2007, 11:54
Are you going to take Ruppel's toy army away? :scastle3: :grin:
Privateerkev
11-21-2007, 12:52
Are you going to take Ruppel's toy army away? :scastle3: :grin:
That army sure has one heck of a story behind it. :yes:
(Like a lot of the others.)
Ehrhart has an army? Does that mean he left Staufen for Bern?
Privateerkev
11-21-2007, 13:04
Ehrhart has an army? Does that mean he left Staufen for Bern?
I have no clue but I would be very surprised if he passed up the opportunity to get a full stack army and pot of wealth.
I have no clue but I would be very surprised if he passed up the opportunity to get a full stack army and pot of wealth.
Full stack? I recall a bit under a half stack of virtually useless men, some much more useful cav, and about 1-2 units of real infantry surviving the Battle of Bern. :clown:
Of course, the ton of cash could rectify any weaknesses in his army.
Privateerkev
11-21-2007, 13:13
I recall a bit under a half stack of virtually useless men
Useless?
Useless!!!??
Hey those men performed awesomely against a force that was quite superior in terms of quality. :2thumbsup:
:tongue:
:clown:
Apparently their fighting prowess wasn't enough for them to keep their leader from being killed. And bum rushing a tiny fragment of Dieter's army does not count as defeating a superior force. Hans' army was the one that performed beyond it's expectations, taking Hugo's and most of Dietrich's armies down with them. :clown:
Privateerkev
11-21-2007, 13:30
Apparently their fighting prowess wasn't enough for them to keep their leader from being killed. And bum rushing a tiny fragment of Dieter's army does not count as defeating a superior force. Hans' army was the one that performed beyond it's expectations, taking Hugo's and most of Dietrich's armies down with them. :clown:
Well, their leader gambled because he wanted his side to win and was willing to risk his life in order to ensure success.
On three separate occasions they took on superior regiments by mobbing them with numbers. "quantity has a quality all of it's own"
Plus the cavalry ended up doing something quite unexpected. o_O
Say what you want about Jan's boys, but given the circumstances they found themselves in, they performed as heroes. :2thumbsup:
so :tongue:
:clown:
Cecil XIX
11-21-2007, 19:52
I think garrisons should be allowed to have up to six units. That's the amount that get free upkeep in huge cities, and it means that if a Count should marshal all his men he'll have a full stack.
Anyways, I've been thinking of how I want Prague to function post-cataclysm. Part if it is obvious, for example Becker will be Reichsgraf von Bohmen. That means he is essentially a freehold count. He will remain Count of Bohemia until his death, whereupon it passes to his chosen heir. He sets the build queue, taxes, etc. Basically Bohemia becomes a County without a Duchy. I also think Bohemia should be given exactly one standing army, or else the Reichsgraf will be the only person in the Reich who has to ask outside his faction if he needs the power of an army.
However, I want Bohemia to be something unique. Part of the beauty of the Cataclysm is that it provides and opportunity to fundamentally change the Four House political structure that has endured basically unchanged since the game began. With that in mind, I thought of what would become of Becker's kids. None of Becker's descendents would be part of a House, and with only one province the others are going to need something to do. So, I decided that all of Becker's descendents should have the ability to serve as 'free agents' in the Reich's armies.
In other words, Bohemian electors would serve the same purpose recruitable generals have now. If the House you want to join doesn't have any avatars, you could join as a Bohemian and negotiate to serve under that house. A bohemian could even join another house permanently, although such a dramatic and permanent change would have to be approved by the Reichsgraf.
This would give Bohemia a truly unique role in the Reich and would add to the roleplaying possibilities without giving Bohemia the powers of the Duchy.
How's that seem to everyone else?
FactionHeir
11-21-2007, 20:02
I say we go in and free Prague from Edmund the Dictator, who we then put on trial for crimes against humanity and the empire :clown:
No, its a decent idea actually. I'd suggest you also contact the new player with the Böhmen avatar to convince him to join your "house" :grin:
I think garrisons should be allowed to have up to six units.
Good point. :2thumbsup:
I also think Bohemia should be given exactly one standing army, or else the Reichsgraf will be the only person in the Reich who has to ask outside his faction if he needs the power of an army.
I am not sure we can stretch to one army per settlement. I think a feudal levy plus a free garrison would be about right for a single settlement. It's roughly what you were set up with at the start of the cataclysm.
Having to ask outside of your faction for help is surely a price of having a faction of one person?
Of course, there is nothing stopping the Chancellor giving you an Imperial army.
So, I decided that all of Becker's descendents should have the ability to serve as 'free agents' in the Reich's armies.
I think that sounds like a good idea, although like most things, I think the status of Prague should be decided by IC politics and not OOC.
Ramses II CP
11-21-2007, 20:39
I'm thinking Becker is going to have some explaining to do, and some serious political machinations will be necessary to hold Prague apart from any house post Cataclysm. I suppose you made a good first move in that direction by your assistance to Franconia at Breslau, but Breslau has now fallen and Prague herself is threatened.
:egypt:
Privateerkev
11-21-2007, 22:34
Like I told Cecil IC around the beginning of the cataclysm, an imperial county already has precedent. And that is the Crusader County of Edessa.
Edessa occupied a weird political space. It was a county, with a count, but outside of a Duchy. The count was answerable to the King who was answerable to the Kaiser. It basically freed a simple Count from the clutches of their Duke. Jan was given asylum by being made count of Edessa and he was prepared to use it to give Bresch asylum if the situation with Ansehelm heated up.
So it exists in the power structure but in a different way.
Like Econ said, Prague should be figured out IC, but Edessa serves as an interesting case-study in order to figure out how it could work OOC.
AussieGiant
11-22-2007, 00:42
Well,
What can I say Cecil...PK.
If we want to organise this OOC then I'll cease negotiations IC as that is clearly just fluff and will have not impact at all.
Part of what Cecil just said is one of the substantial negotiation points I am following.
Without force of arms you're going to be in a spot of bother post crisis. Everything you just said is an attempt at resolving that OOC.
An Imperial County did exist...as part of it's original creation...not as part of leaving a House and trying to become one...that is what I thought would be an interesting part of the IC attempt to leave...and that is AGAIN another part of my strategy.
It was my view that Becker does need to accept that he could fail on both these fronts and have to rejoin the house...by the sounds of these few posts, it seems as if that is not an option in a few eyes.
And just a small jab...now that Jan is dead...will that affect the advise Becker is getting :inquisitive: ...you know IC issues have changed...or has Jan a ghost that can take over...:beam:
So as econ says...is this purely IC or not?
gibsonsg91921
11-22-2007, 00:44
this is definitely purely IC.
Both the Hummel crew and Becker should have to secure their independance through Diet legislation. Under the proposed 14.3, PvP battles will still be possible in the post-cataclysm phase. If either of them fail to abide by whatever the Diet says, the Electors can always round up a 'posse' and go teach them a lesson. So, it seems to me that they should either be looking to secure a political agreement with enough powerful people to pass a vote, or they should be prepared to fight.
Cecil XIX
11-22-2007, 00:55
I didn't realise my post would be seen as an attempt to circumvent IC negotiations. Though OOC decisions might be more favorable to me, I agree that IC negotiations are the only way to go. I just wanted people's opinions on the mechanics of my proposal to so it's ready when the Diet starts. I'd agree with Tincow about how things should go post Diet.
'Course, that applies to Arnold and Athawolf too. :beam:
gibsonsg91921
11-22-2007, 00:57
well, peter is using his new capacity as "pruke" (why does that sound like a racial slur???) to negotiate with wolfgang now.
Wow, between this and learning that Ehrhart is in Bern, the Post Cataclysm thread seems to be the place to find out what's going on. :cool:
well, peter is using his new capacity as "pruke" (why does that sound like a racial slur???) to negotiate with wolfgang now.
AussieGiant
11-22-2007, 01:30
I didn't realise my post would be seen as an attempt to circumvent IC negotiations. Though OOC decisions might be more favorable to me, I agree that IC negotiations are the only way to go. I just wanted people's opinions on the mechanics of my proposal to so it's ready when the Diet starts. I'd agree with Tincow about how things should go post Diet.
'Course, that applies to Arnold and Athawolf too. :beam:
Of course OOC will be far more beneficial Cecil... :-)
The IC aspects are going to be a pretty steep hill to climb that's why.
Certainly OOC discussion on how to "arrange" things are required, but only after the resolution IC of the situation.
And fighting would be pretty ugly...resource differentiation means at some point a pipe hitting group would turn up and pound the hell out of the situation.
So...with that settled I'll get back to IC negotiations with Becker :beam:
deguerra
11-22-2007, 02:11
the Hummel crew. I like that. :D
the Hummel crew. I like that. :D
Yay, we're a member of somebody's crew! :beam:
gibsonsg91921
11-22-2007, 03:27
hummel has a tough, down and dirty, "crew" sounding name too.
Ramses II CP
11-22-2007, 03:39
Hmm, Hummel always makes me think of those little glass figurines old women collect. 'The Hummel Crew' looks like this in my head:
http://www.mihummel.com/collection_detail.asp?link=1&ItemID=1152
:clown:
:egypt:
Assuming there's beer in that jug, I think I'd like to be the shepherd on the right. :clown:
Privateerkev
11-22-2007, 06:05
Well,
What can I say Cecil...PK.
If we want to organise this OOC then I'll cease negotiations IC as that is clearly just fluff and will have not impact at all.
Part of what Cecil just said is one of the substantial negotiation points I am following.
Without force of arms you're going to be in a spot of bother post crisis. Everything you just said is an attempt at resolving that OOC.
An Imperial County did exist...as part of it's original creation...not as part of leaving a House and trying to become one...that is what I thought would be an interesting part of the IC attempt to leave...and that is AGAIN another part of my strategy.
It was my view that Becker does need to accept that he could fail on both these fronts and have to rejoin the house...by the sounds of these few posts, it seems as if that is not an option in a few eyes.
And just a small jab...now that Jan is dead...will that affect the advise Becker is getting :inquisitive: ...you know IC issues have changed...or has Jan a ghost that can take over...:beam:
So as econ says...is this purely IC or not?
My example was purely to show the mechanics of an Imperial County. I did not intend it to be seen as circumventing IC negotiations. :bow:
As for the advice to Becker, I had Jan give that in the beginning of the cataclysm. As for what advice Alfgarda gives, that depends on how tethered I want to make her to Jan's old plots. I don't want to play the same character with a new skin but I do want to stay "plugged in" into some of the "meta-plots" that Jan was part of.
You can assume that Jan left Alfgarda with a massive amount of knowledge about the politics of the Diet. How Alfgarda will use that information is to be determined.
I'm not the only one that has used a new character to further an old character's plots. OK used Elsebeth to link Matthias to Otto's agenda. Gibson has had Peter carry out Erhart von Mahren's agenda. Cecil has had Becker tied pretty tightly to Sigismund's plots. GH admitted he had Dassel kill Hans partly because of something that happened to Jens. Elberhard has continued some of Henry's stories such as Dusan.
I figure having a new avatar gives you an opportunity to start fresh or stay plugged into meta-plots. :2thumbsup:
AussieGiant
11-22-2007, 06:12
My example was purely to show the mechanics of an Imperial County. I did not intend it to be seen as circumventing IC negotiations. :bow:
As for the advice to Becker, I had Jan give that in the beginning of the cataclysm. As for what advice Alfgarda gives, that depends on how tethered I want to make her to Jan's old plots. I don't want to play the same character with a new skin but I do want to stay "plugged in" into some of the "meta-plots" that Jan was part of.
You can assume that Jan left Alfgarda with a massive amount of knowledge about the politics of the Diet. How Alfgarda will use that information is to be determined.
I'm not the only one that has used a new character to further an old character's plots. OK used Elsebeth to link Matthias to Otto's agenda. Gibson has had Peter carry out Erhart von Mahren's agenda. Cecil has had Becker tied pretty tightly to Sigismund's plots. GH admitted he had Dassel kill Hans partly because of something that happened to Jens. Elberhard has continued some of Henry's stories such as Dusan.
I figure having a new avatar gives you an opportunity to start fresh or stay plugged into meta-plots. :2thumbsup:
Right so now you've explained that, which allows further advise to be given...
Are you going to reply to the letter madam or not? :2thumbsup:
Privateerkev
11-22-2007, 06:20
Right so now you've explained that, which allows further advise to be given...
Are you going to reply to the letter madam or not? :2thumbsup:
I'm actually writing the reply as we speak. I apologize for the tardiness. That is strictly for OOC reasons and not some sort of an attempt to play coy. Been busy with other stuff and I have been slowly catching up on my PM backlog. ^_^
AussieGiant
11-22-2007, 06:22
I'm actually writing the reply as we speak. I apologize for the tardiness. That is strictly for OOC reasons and not some sort of an attempt to play coy. Been busy with other stuff and I have been slowly catching up on my PM backlog. ^_^
entirely understand...the semester is coming to a close.
Privateerkev
11-22-2007, 06:25
entirely understand...the semester is coming to a close.
It's both too far off, and not far enough. Having been through it, does that make sense to you? Or have I gone :dizzy2:
:laugh4:
AussieGiant
11-22-2007, 06:31
It's both too far off, and not far enough. Having been through it, does that make sense to you? Or have I gone :dizzy2:
:laugh4:
Understood...having done it enough...that's about the only way I could understand you.:beam:
Cecil XIX
12-01-2007, 20:39
What happens to wealth that is not spent in 1338. Will it be given to the Reich's treasury, or will we be allowed to spend the last of it?
FactionHeir
12-01-2007, 20:46
You will be visited by a metallic bovine in your sleep. It will then slowly eat away at the wealth you have leaving you none. Then it will grow wings and fly to Cuba.
Cecil XIX
12-01-2007, 20:48
Looks like Becker's going on the first voyage to the new world, then.
Privateerkev
12-01-2007, 20:48
When we finally take Cuba (Carib), will we get all of that wealth back?
:clown:
*edit*
Doh! Cecil typed his when I was typing mine.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.