Out of character thread II

[Kagemusha]

I think its a good idea. I dont want us to drown in bureocracy. I think that with 40 possible edicts we can decide all the matters possible for a single Chancellors reign.

[TinCow]

If we need to limit the number of edicts proposed, let's do it in such a way as to utilize the House threads we've already got going. Let's do something like 1 to 2 edicts per Elector, with an extra 3 or 4 surplus per House which can only be posted by the Duke. So, if you want to propose edicts beyond your personal limit, you've got to convince your boss to support them. That would seem to play into our greater emphasis on the Houses.

[Kagemusha]

I like that idea also Tincow. Maybe there should those two Edicts per Elector and a single or two house edicts,which could only used if the whole house agrees on the subject? I think this could create lot more discussion in the house threads.

[Ituralde]

I agree with TinCow's proposal on the matter, if any restriction will be put forward. But to be frank I don't see the point right now, we haven't even reached the 40 posts that the restriction would bring. I'm fine with the way it is now with some Electors posting many Edicts and others posting none.
Although I must say I'm intrigued by the In-House meanings of TinCows proposal.

Maybe another route would be to just generally hold back and instead of just proposing a list of Edicts,you start out with stating the personal opinion and agenda and see how other people react to it, before pressing it into a formalized Edict. The only problem I see right now is that we have many Edicts with similar meanings, but I'm even alright with that.

[econ21]

How about 2 edicts/elector + 2 House edicts, which must be proposed by the Duke and seconded by 2 electors of the same House? (avoids having to have formal votes within houses)

I don't want to be too generous on the numbers, as finding a like minded person to propose something should not be too hard.

Ituralde: I think the issue I have with the edicts is that some may be motherhood & apple pie stuff; others may be minutae that should be left up to the Chancellor. I think edicts should be for grand strategy and diplomacy - who do we attack/ally? I am not sure it would be much fun being a Chancellor with a checklist of 20+ tasks.

I think the 2 edicts/elector cap would in practice cut down the number of edicts dramatically - the 40 max is just to say if we desperately need 40 edicts, we could have them.

[Kagemusha]

I agree with Econ´s last draft. I think in the future,the number of allowed edicts per Elector could be dropped even to 1+ couple house Edicts.. After all most people dont have lot to do specially at the times when the Chancellor reigns and this would allow for people to talk inside the houses and gather support/wrestle about the issues,they want to see proposed in the next Diet.

[AussieGiant]

Yes the number of edicts has gone off the chart!

I'd say it's time to have the Dukes be the only ones proposing edicts and the House thread be used for the discussion on what each House wants to put forward.

I simply can't keep up and it's as if everyone is running off in a different direction.

In this form things would have to be discussed, thought out and persented in a co-ordinated fashion through a single point of representation rather than having 20 different agenda's trying to the tabled at the same time.

At the moment the overall effect it's reducing the significance of what people are trying to convey in the edicts.

What do you all think?

[TinCow]

I'll go along with the Amendment, but Ituralde does have a point. I ran some stats and the 30 edicts and Amendment 5.1 were all proposed by 14 people. Of these, only 2 people proposed more than 2. Of those two, one was Ituralde himself, but since he's a Duke he would get the extra +2 anyway, so he'd only really be 1 edict over. So, under the proposed system the only serious violation would be the Fifth Elector of Swabia, who proposed 8. It looks to me like the 2 + 2 restrictions would cut down only slightly on the proposed edicts. In order to have a major cut down, it would have to be 1 + 2. I'm not saying we should do that, just puting the information out there.

[Ituralde]

Alright, I think I can see the point of making the House threads a kind of filter for the Diet. So I'll go with the last proposal made by econ21.

I just generally like for those things to regualte themselves without putting harsh measurements on them, but maybe in this case it's better to make official restriction to let it happen.

[econ21]

Good work on the stats, TinCow. Ok, it's disproportionate to have a Charter Ammendment just to beat down on one Elector. :sweatdrop: Let's beat down on all of us. :whip:

How about: 1 edict/elector; a kind of "private member's bill" as we call it in the UK
Plus 3 edicts/Duke which must be presented with the support (seconding) of 2 same House members. (i.e. should be discussed in-House first).

[Ituralde]

My current feeling is a bit ambigious. I know I would not have liked that too much back when I was just a simple Elector, but maybe it will become better. I had hoped that just by discussing the issue all player (me included) would automatically cut back on the Edicts.

And there's still the two seconders to consider that are needed for an Edict to become reality for any Chancellor. So my gut says that 1 vote per Elector is too little, but then TinCows numbers indicate otherwise.

I'd give it a try to see how it works, but am not opposed to let it fall if it doesn't work out and you feel like you can't get important issues raised within the Diet.

[TinCow]

Should we give it a trial period then? Do it like this for the next session, but only make it permanent if people again vote to do so?

[Kagemusha]

Im ready to give it a try.Ofcourse we can chance it,if it doesnt work. I would be ready also that the Dukes should have complete support of his counts in order to create house Edict. This would give more power to the Counts also and the Dukes should really work hard also to create house edicts,ofcourse by bribery,threatening and blackmailing.~;) Is it just me or are we moving all the time more towards a more feodal system?:book:

[TinCow]

Ahem... speaking of a feudal system, Dukes have to have heirs.


4.7 Dukes and Counts should name a successor, who will take over their titles and settlements when they die. If no successor is named, the oldest natural son inherits, (if none, oldest adopted son; if none again, then the oldest son-in-law).

To my knowledge, no Duke has named an heir. This should probably be done and is another good way to 'reward' a loyal Count. Removal of heir status would make a good threat as well.

[AussieGiant]

Now are we seriously proposing regulations on making edicts?

The bureaucracy is going to grind us to a halt soon.

Dukes, the only Steward, the Chancellor the Kaiser and Prinz Henri. Done.

All other electors use the House Threads to thrash out and collate their respective ideas and they then get sent in by the 4 house dudes.

The Electors can petition the other 3 by PM's or public requests.

More numbers and more rules...:wall:

I'm not trying to sound harsh but we only each have a limited amount of time to play this game and I can see the technicalities and reference material not even being used because it is becoming so cumbersome.

[Ituralde]

Well, I'm all for a feudal system, this is MEDIEVAL, after all! :yes:

[Kagemusha]

Ahem... speaking of a feudal system, Dukes have to have heirs.



To my knowledge, no Duke has named an heir. This should probably be done and is another good way to 'reward' a loyal Count. Removal of heir status would make a good threat as well.

Well Dietrich is on a bad spot there,since his line will die with him on the mans side.He has the little daughter,but it will take bit of time before she grows up and Dietrich might not see that,but die of old age before. Im personally thinking about naming the heir of Franconia during and after the next Chancellors reign. To make it even more complicated he has two adopted oldest sons of same age.:sweatdrop: I like the direction we are going with this amendment.

[FactionHeir]

2 things:

Firstly, I guess I have been proposing too many edicts - I guess some of them are common sense, but seeing the past edicts also being of the same type, I proposed them. Others are actually (i feel) important policy issues.

I can agree with econ21's suggestion that there should in the future be only 2 edicts per elector, although personally I feel 3 would be better (since most will not propose any or less than 3 anyway) Besides, without seconding, an edict never becomes an edict either.

Secondly, I am wondering what the policy on battles is. I noticed in the Imperial Library that only mentions of "battles fought" are listed but not divided in "battles won" vs "battles lost". Does that mean the comanding player gets to reload as much as he wants until he wins a battle (and does not die as a general)?!? I would have thought 1st attempt only would be fair (although it might be hard to enforce unless several electors go to the player's home and watch :p) but could still be as a code of honor.

[TinCow]

I'm not trying to sound harsh but we only each have a limited amount of time to play this game and I can see the technicalities and reference material not even being used because it is becoming so cumbersome.

This is a valid point as well. It should really be a heirarchy of responsibility. Obviously the Chancellor will have to keep track of a great deal of rules and information, but that's a voluntary position so no one should complain about it. Dukes have less responsibilities, but more than most, but they should be somewhat voluntary as well (refuse to be heir if you don't want it). Counts have few responsibilities and only need to remember to submit build queues. Electors don't need to know much at all, unless they want to rise in rank, which again would be a voluntary decision.

If you guys want, I will be happy to clean up the rules and write a simple "How To" for all the various positions. I think I could make it pretty simple so that most of the roles can be explained in brief terms in a paragraph or two. Then, if people want more info on the specifics they can refer to the full rules list.

[AussieGiant]

Well, I'm all for a feudal system, this is MEDIEVAL, after all! :yes:

Exactly :2thumbsup:

[OverKnight]

Geez TinCow, Max wants Nuremberg and to be named Otto's heir :dizzy2: ? I shudder to think what will happen to poor Otto if Max is elected.

"Yes my Duke, I'm dispatching you with a unit of peasants to assault Corsica, Godspeed!" :laugh4:

Seriously though, Otto will probably shift the Bavarian capital to Innsbruck, his original County. This shift takes into account the new territories of Bavaria and is more central.

As for an heir, besides Max, who isn't on the family tree, it's slim pickings for Bavaria, not to mention Austria as well. The best I could do for the moment is appoint Max Regent, assuming Otto has kids, in case of Otto's early demise.

As for CA 5.2, I'm all for encouraging house cooperation. A good majority of the proposed edicts don't make it to the ballot anyway. It'll be good to have a pre-screening process in the House threads.

[TinCow]

Secondly, I am wondering what the policy on battles is. I noticed in the Imperial Library that only mentions of "battles fought" are listed but not divided in "battles won" vs "battles lost". Does that mean the comanding player gets to reload as much as he wants until he wins a battle (and does not die as a general)?!? I would have thought 1st attempt only would be fair (although it might be hard to enforce unless several electors go to the player's home and watch :p) but could still be as a code of honor.

The "battles fought" thing doesnt mean anything because no general has lost a battle yet. The only losses we have had so far have been auto-calced and so they don't show up on any Bios. I will certainly list battle losses for avatars when they happen. Reloading is strictly forbidden.


Geez TinCow, Max wants Nuremberg and to be named Otto's heir :dizzy2: ? I shudder to think what will happen to poor Otto if Max is elected.

"Yes my Duke, I'm dispatching you with a unit of peasants to assault Corsica, Godspeed!" :laugh4:

...

As for an heir, besides Max, who isn't on the family tree, it's slim pickings for Bavaria, not to mention Austria as well. The best I could do for the moment is appoint Max Regent, assuming Otto has kids, in case of Otto's early demise.


LOL, I wasn't refering to Bavaria at all actually. It wouldn't make any sense for Max to be heir, just doesnt work for RP. I really was just talking about Swabia and Franconia, since they have a ton of candidates for the positions.

[FactionHeir]

Reloading is strictly forbidden.


It would be good to add that part into the rules then, because I didn't find it there.

[Kagemusha]

I think some one else, should second the amendment. Dietrich shouldnt be jumping up and down to the speaker stand on his advanced age.:clown:

[FactionHeir]

Mandorf raised an interesting point in the diet, which was that fleets can only carry one unit [sic] per ship. If I remember correctly, the rules stated 2?
Even so, I feel this is kind of unrealistic and this is why:
1 ship unit actually consists of 30 ships (small unit size, dunno how much on large) and 1 peasant unit consists of 60 peasants (on small unit size). Since those likely can be extrapolated, this would mean that each ship (not ship unit) can only carry 2-4 (depending on who is right) peasants (not peasant unit)?!? Those ships surely can carry more historically? I'd say 4 units per ship at the very least... maybe 3 for balancing purposes.

[TinCow]

My apologies about the 1 unit per ship thing. That was the WOTS rule and I forgot that we changed it to 2 for KOTR.

[AussieGiant]

This is a valid point as well. It should really be a heirarchy of responsibility. Obviously the Chancellor will have to keep track of a great deal of rules and information, but that's a voluntary position so no one should complain about it. Dukes have less responsibilities, but more than most, but they should be somewhat voluntary as well (refuse to be heir if you don't want it). Counts have few responsibilities and only need to remember to submit build queues. Electors don't need to know much at all, unless they want to rise in rank, which again would be a voluntary decision.

If you guys want, I will be happy to clean up the rules and write a simple "How To" for all the various positions. I think I could make it pretty simple so that most of the roles can be explained in brief terms in a paragraph or two. Then, if people want more info on the specifics they can refer to the full rules list.

That would be great TC. I also believe that a feudal top down hierarchy is a good way to go. Econ's given enough leeway for personal agenda's but it would make things a little more like the real situation we are role playing.

[Ignoramus]

What about the changing of the Reich's capital? For instance, if we conquer all of Poland, then Frankfurt would be too far west to be an effective capital.

I assume it requires an edict in the Diet?

[TinCow]

Good question. I'd like to see that be a power given to the Kaiser. Let him move the capital to wherever he wants whenever he wants.

[StoneCold]

Hmm... or how about once Rome is captured, the capital must be at Rome, since you are the HRE? In WoTS, the question nvr actually came up.

[Northnovas]

I see the edict restrictions generated some conversation. It was early morning and I hadn't gotten through my first cup of java doing some reasearching and I saw this post.

Swabian Elector: My fellow electors, I have noticed the enthusiasm in which many of you have put forward your proposals, however, the Diet's time is limited, so I propose the following:

Edict 1.21: Each elector is only allowed to put forward 3 edicts to the Diet. Dukes are allowed 5, while the Chancellor has no limit.

I jsu got home and followed the post through and seen that it died on the 1st Diet floor. However there were some good suggestions made. I was just a bit overwhelmed to read through the Edicts being purposed before econ cleans them up and list them. I think the house idea works and then the Diet post can talk what has been proposed and seconded by the House. Good try for the next session.

[econ21]

StoneCold - do you want to take up a role in this PBM? I suspect I've asked you this before and maybe you said you don't have M2TW, but as you can see we have a fair number of Electors without avatars so you joining in a kind of "Upper House" role would be fine. For example, we're stopping the Franconians getting any more avatars for the moment, but they could use a 5th Elector. If my memory is wrong and you do have M2TW, then you could join as a conventional participant.

[ArchdukeEvan]

well... im off to Washington DC :2thumbsup: for 4 days... St. Patricks day parade... if your there and you watch it... look for Ross High School Band... i plat the Suzaphone on the left... :beam: anyways... i left in the diet... and i may get internet there long enough to vote if i wont get back in time... sry to everyone missing my lovly and informitive speaches on poland... :laugh4:


have fun... and dont kill eachother!

[TinCow]

I'm writing up the rules summary and I've got a question about one of the rules.


5.2 Once in his reign, typically when crowned, the Emperor can automatically assume the post of Chancellor.

Does this mean that when Henry (and any other Prince) becomes Emperor, he can instantly kick out the elected Chancellor and take that post for himself?

[Ignoramus]

I guess so. Perhaps you won't want to run for Chancellor this term? Of course Heinrich could live for a while yet, although most charcters die at 60.

[econ21]

No, I was thinking instead of an election, a new Emperor can become Chancellor to make his mark - like GH did at the start of this PBM. So he would wait for the Diet after his father's death.

[TinCow]

That makes sense.

Ok, here's my draft of the game summary. I've designed it in a simple -> complex manner, so that newcomers can pretty much stop reading after the Electors section if they really want. I wrote it assuming that Amendments 5.1 and 5.2 would pass. If they don't I'll edit it appropriately. The more you read, the more detail you get. I've looked at the Rules but I'm becoming reluctant to edit them at all, even to make them look nice, simply because I don't want to accidentally change their meaning.

The following paragraphs are designed to provide a simple understanding of the KOTR game and how it works. If anything in these paragraphs conflicts with one of the Game Rules, the Rule takes precedent.

Introduction

The general idea of the King of the Romans (KOTR) game is to allow a large group of players to determine the fate and development of the Holy Roman Empire in M2TW.

All players are “Electors” and will belong to one of the four Ducal Houses, Franconia (north), Swabia (west), Austria (east) or Bavaria (south). Eventually all players will be represented by an in-game character known as an “avatar.” This will typically be a general, but agents such as spies, priests or diplomats can be used as well upon request. It is not advisable to use an assassin as an avatar, as they have short life expectancies. If a player’s avatar gets into a battle, the player is expected to download the savegame and fight the battle.

Collectively, the Electors form the Imperial Diet. This has two functions - to elect a Chancellor and to create Edicts. The Chancellor will be the “reigning player” and control the game during his term in office. He will move all the generals, authorize any buildings from the build queues and train any units/agents. “Edicts” are laws that require the Chancellor to take specific actions. These can be very wide ranging in scope, but typically include such things as declaring war against another nation, seeking an alliance with a neutral country, or making peace with an enemy nation.

How to Join the Game

In order to join the game and get started, all you need to do is post in the current OOC thread that you would like to join and select one of the four Ducal Houses. You can then start participating in as much or as little detail as you wish. You will always be able to find the location of the relevant game threads in the second post of the Imperial Library ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1383644&postcount=2).

The Ranks

KOTR attempts to mimic the feudal political system of medieval Europe. There are several ranks which each player can obtain, all of which come with their own benefit and responsibilities. If you wish to be highly involved, you can take on roles that require more work and responsibility. If you wish to simply observe and cast votes during election times, you will have to do very little. The extent of your involvement is entirely up to you.

Electors

All players, except the Emperor, are Electors, even if they hold another rank. It is the lowest rank in the game and all new players begin at this level. As an Elector, you may speak in the Imperial Diet, propose one Edict per session, vote on Edicts, and vote for Chancellor. All Electors belong to one of the Ducal Houses. You are not required to follow the orders or suggestions of your Duke, but he has the ability to bestow and remove ranks and privileges. If you have ambitions to rise to a higher rank, carefully consider whether your Duke will approve of your actions or not.

It is important to remember that you can only freely propose one personal Edict per Diet session. Choose an issue that is important to you and think very carefully about how you word it. A poorly worded or unimportant Edict can easily be ignored and forgotten. The only way you can propose more than one Edict per Diet session is through the approval of your Duke.

Electors will be provided with avatars on the basis of seniority; first come, first served. Generals are the most popular avatars and there may be a waiting period to obtain one. Agent avatars can usually be obtained quickly, but are not as complex and are not really suited for players who wish to rise to a higher rank. If you take a general as an avatar, you will be expected to fight any battles the avatar gets into, assuming he commands the army. You will have 48 hours in which to fight the battle after you are notified about it. When that time expires, the battle will be autoresolved, which could result in the death of your avatar. If you do not want to fight battles and there is a shortage of generals for avatars, please do not accept one. If you want an avatar but do not wish to fight, please consider using an agent.

Counts

Counts are prominent nobles within their Houses. The title of Count can be bestowed upon an Elector by his Duke. The role of Count is identical to that of an Elector with a general avatar, with a few exceptions.

A Count rules over one of the settlements (city or castle) in his Ducal House. The Count may, at his discretion, determine the order in which buildings are created in that settlement (build queue). The Chancellor is not required to build anything in the settlement, but if something is built, it must be in the order determined by the Count. The Count can also set the tax rate in his settlement, if it is a city. Counts gain a small influence bonus during votes on Edicts and in elections for Chancellor. Counts can name an heir to take over their lands when they die. For practical purposes, this should only be an Elector from your Ducal House with a general avatar who is not already a Count.

There are two kinds of Counts: Freehold Counts and Bonded Counts. The difference is simple. Freehold Counts are the natural born sons of a Duke. They cannot be removed from control of their settlement, though the Duke can still name another as his heir if a Freehold Count displeases him. Bonded Counts are non-blood sons of a Duke, such as adoptees, sons-in-law, or anyone else who is not a natural born son. Bonded Counts can be stripped of their titles and lands at any time and for any reason by the Duke.

Dukes

Dukes are the heads of the Houses. They are figures of authority and they wield a great deal of power. There is only one Duke per House and a player can only become Duke by being the Duke’s heir at the time of his death. The role of Duke has many more powers than that of Count and Dukes gain a significant influence bonus during votes on Edicts and in elections for Chancellor.

The Duke rules over the capital of his House and all provinces which do not have a Count. Just like with a Count, the Duke can determine the build queue and tax rate for these settlements, but he can give orders for as many of them as he wishes. Dukes are also responsible for promoting and demoting Bonded Counts. A Duke may give any Elector with a general avatar the rank of Count, making them a Bonded Count. He may take away their lands at any time or switch their lands as he sees fit. The Duke can name an heir to take over as head of his House when he dies. For practical purposes, this should only be an Elector from your Ducal House with a general avatar, and it is recommended (though not necessary) that the person already be a Count.

The Duke is responsible for managing the affairs of his House and will often be dealing directly with the Chancellor and the Kaiser in high-level political discussions. Dukes may propose one personal Edict per Diet session, but also control three additional House Edict proposals per Diet session. These proposals are no different than any other Edicts, but they must have the pre-secured backing of at least two seconders from inside the Duke’s House. These can be the Duke’s own Edicts, but it is recommended that the Duke pick at least some of them from amongst the ‘extras’ his Electors want to put forward. It would be entirely appropriate for the Duke to use incentives and threats to ensure that the policies he wants get put forward. However, remember that even these extra Edict proposals must come pre-seconded by two members of his House. Don’t anger too many of your Electors or they could prevent you from using your extra Edict proposals!

Finally, the Duke controls the Household Army. The Household Army is the House’s personal military force and it is largely independent of outside control. The Duke is responsible for determining where it is garrisoned, who commands it, and what orders it is given. For more details, read the Game Rule on Household Armies.

Stewards

Stewards are Electors who are temporarily acting as Dukes. KOTR originally started with two Stewards, but for the most part, the title of Steward is a temporary one bestowed on a House Elector for a short time when a Duke is unavailable to fulfill his duties. In reality, this happens when a player who is a Duke is going on vacation or is otherwise going to be out-of-touch with the game for a short period of time.

Stewards have all of the powers of Dukes for the duration of their term, except that they cannot name an heir.

Emperor (Kaiser)

The Holy Roman Emperor is the supreme head of the Empire. It is a hereditary position. (Note: This is not historical, but there’s no way to change this in-game.) While the Emperor is theoretically the most powerful man in the entire Empire, in the KOTR game he plays a more subtle role. The Emperor gains an influence bonus equal to his authority during votes on Edicts and in elections for Chancellor.

First, the Emperor presides over the Imperial Diet. It is his job to maintain order in the Diet and ensure that it runs smoothly. If there is a dispute about the Game Rules, the Emperor will make the final decision about the proper manner to follow the Rules.

Second, the Emperor does not belong to any of the Ducal Houses. Upon inheriting the throne, they leave their old House for good and lose any other titles (Elector, Count, Duke) that they might have. The Emperor is expected to act for the good of the Empire, rather than an individual House. While Emperors are expected to be impartial, they will certainly have strong opinions about what is best for the Empire. This may in turn result in them siding with Houses that support their decisions and working against Houses that they believe are hurting the Empire.

Third, Emperors allocate newly captured provinces to the Ducal Houses. When a province is captured, it comes under the direct control of the Emperor, who can control them in the same manner that the Dukes and the Counts can control their own lands. The Emperor may allocate any of his lands to any of the Ducal Houses. Once allocated, they cannot ever be returned to the Emperor. House provinces where are re-taken after being occupied by an enemy do not count as being “captured.”

Fourth, Emperors decide which player-controlled avatar, if any, a Princess should marry.

Finally, Emperors can automatically assume the position of Chancellor for the first term after they are crowned. This power is not subject to Diet vote and no one can run against them. However, the Emperor still has the limitations of Chancellor while in office, which means he can be impeached by the Diet in exceptional circumstances. Any further attempts by the Emperor to be Chancellor must go through the normal election process.

Prince (Prinz)

The Prince is a largely unimportant role, significant mainly because he is the heir to the throne and will become the next Emperor. Unlike the title of Emperor, the title of Prince is added in addition to any other titles the player holds. This gives the player a small influence bonus during votes on Edicts and in elections for Chancellor. The Prince’s only duty is to preside over the Diet when the Emperor is absent.

There is no control over who becomes the new Prince once the current one assumes the throne. Like with the Emperor, this is a limitation imposed on us by the game itself. With luck, the role will only fall on players who seek to be active in the game. (*cross your fingers!*)

In practical terms, players must always remember that the Prince will inherit the throne, thus gaining power over the Houses through his ability to allocate newly conquered provinces. If you make an enemy of the Prince, your House might find itself smaller than the others when he becomes Emperor.

Chancellor

The position of Chancellor is without a doubt the most important and powerful one in KOTR. In game terms, the Chancellor is the person who actually plays the M2TW game. Unlike the other positions, you shouldn’t think of the Chancellor in the sense of what he can do, but rather what he cannot do. He is essentially playing the single player M2TW campaign with the following restrictions:

The Chancellor must obey the Game Rules and Edicts that have been passed by the Diet. Failure to do so can lead to impeachment by the Diet.

The Chancellor decides whether buildings are to be constructed in all settlements. If a settlement has a build queue from a Count, Duke, or Emperor, then he must build the items on that list in the order listed. However, he does not have to build anything at all if he does not want to, he only has to follow the build queue if he does decide to build something. If a settlement has no build queue for whatever reason, the Chancellor can build whatever he likes.

The Chancellor moves the armies and hands out saved games to be played by the appropriate generals. He can fight battles that his avatar is commanding whenever he wants without pause, but must give other players 48 hours to fight their battles. If a player exceeds the time limit or if the battle is lead by a Captain or a general that is not represented by a player, the battle must be autoresolved. The only exception to the Chancellor’s control over the armies are the Household Armies. For more details, read the Game Rule on Household Armies.

Essentially everything else is free game. If there isn’t a Rule or Edict about it, the Chancellor can do whatever he wants. The Chancellor’s term last for 10 game turns (20 game years), but he can run for re-election if he wishes. In recognition for his contributions, the Chancellor gets a small influence bonus during votes on Edicts and in elections for Chancellor, even after he leaves office.

[OverKnight]

Concise and clear TC, I did notice one thing. . .when talking about edicts you wrote:

These can be very wide ranging in scope, but typically include such things as declaring war against another nation, attacking a specific target, or seeking an alliance with an enemy.

You might want to rewrite it as something like this, ". . .seeking an alliance with a neutral country, or making peace with an enemy nation."

Other than that, very well done. :2thumbsup:

[Northnovas]

Very well done an easy read. Nice to get a refresher while in the game.:2thumbsup:

[TinCow]

LOL... yeah, no alliance with enemies. Changed that.

[Stuperman]

I like the limit edicts as well, and the idea of several ducal or house sponsered edicts is very interesting I think. A couple of questions though, could say, a swabian elector have their edict put foreward by the duke of Franconia, or smoething like that?

and edict 5.18 and 5.20 give orders concering what to build, but since this is under the watch of Govener's and the like, and edicts are for the Chancellor to follow, aren't they kinda useless?

[OverKnight]

I guess if you asked really nicely, then an elector from another house could propose an edict for you, but it would be their one edict, not a House one. The thinking, as far as I can tell, was to encourage use of the House threads to craft edicts for the Diet as a team effort.

As for mandating building queues, yup edicts can't do that. However, in the last Diet I put forward an edict, which passed, that called for the Chancellor to build navies in the Med and Baltic, and I encouraged the building of port facilities. So you can't mandate construction of buildings in edicts, but you can encourage or suggest buildings.

Here's how I phrased it:

Edict 3.11: The Chancellor will endeavor to construct naval forces capable of blockades and transport of mid-sized armies in the Baltic and especially the Mediterranean. Dukes and Counts are encouraged by the Diet to build port facilities in their domains, if applicable.

Hope that helps.

[Ignoramus]

I am glad that a limit was imposed on edicts. I tried to do this in the first Diet, but then there weren't so many edicts so it didn't pass.

I am going to make one post in Diet proposing my edicts and answering edicts put forward. It's going to take a while.

Also, I really need to discuss "certain matters" with Otto, OverKnight, so expect a message soon.

[AussieGiant]

Well done TC.

You have a gift my man!! :2thumbsup:

[AussieGiant]

Well done TC.

You have a gift my man!! :2thumbsup:

[econ21]

Governors and Dukes should post build queues by Monday.

Let's assume the Household armies ammendment goes through - Dukes should post:
(a) where they want their Household army garrisoned (does not have to be a settlement)
(b) who should lead it
(c) what standing orders it has

During the Chancellor's reign, Dukes can liase with the Chancellor to react to events, but to keep the game running smoothly the obligation is on the Dukes to keep up to date (e.g. download saves occasionally) and Chancellors are not obliged to obey orders made between Diets (e.g. they may have played on).

In terms of the voting, I am thinking of opening the balloting on Saturday night and closing it Monday night (UK time). That should give everyone a chance to vote.

[AussieGiant]

Hi All,

Ok so some news.

The timing could not be worse.

I'm heading to Australia from Switzerland this Saturday for three weeks holiday.

That means I'll be "in the air" for most of the voting period.

I'll be in Perth from about 18:00 local time on my dad's dial up connection so that should give me enough badwidth to click a few buttons.

For the rest of the 3 weeks I'll have very limited ability to read and respond to what is going on.

I hope this doesn't deter me from getting an Avatar if one pops up.

Tonight I'll be online of course in between all the packing.

Cheers
AG

[TinCow]

In terms of the voting, I am thinking of opening the balloting on Saturday night and closing it Monday night (UK time). That should give everyone a chance to vote.

GH stated that the Diet would stay open for one day longer (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1455262&postcount=489) than you originally posted. Since he's Kaiser, he has the right to do that. That would make it 8am Sunday, GMT. Informally, I think he did that so that he could get back from his trip before voting ended. He said he would be back Sunday night, EST. So, your close date/time looks fine.


Well done TC.

You have a gift my man!! :2thumbsup:

It comes with being a "blood sucking" lawyer. :laugh4:



That means I'll be "in the air" for most of the voting period.

...

I hope this doesn't deter me from getting an Avatar if one pops up.

You've been very active, so we should do everything we can to help out. It might be wise to pre-vote for your candidate and Edicts. Just assume that they all get seconded and send econ21 a PM that says "5.1 - Yes, 5.2 - No, 5.3 - ..." etc. If you get back in time, you can put in the vote anyway, but if you don't he could use your PM to add in your votes.

[econ21]

GH stated that the Diet would stay open for one day longer (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1455262&postcount=489) than you originally posted. Since he's Kaiser, he has the right to do that. That would make it 8am Sunday, GMT. Informally, I think he did that so that he could get back from his trip before voting ended. He said he would be back Sunday night, EST. So, your close date/time looks fine.

I originally posted closing the Diet Saturday 8am. The problem is I can't guarantee posting on the Org at 8am on a Sunday morning - I can't guarantee doing anything at 8am Sunday - and polls can only be open for a given number of days, not hours. So, we have a choice - open the polls on Saturday night for 48 hours; or open Sunday whenever sleepy head gets up for 24 hours. Given the weekend tends to be rather a quiet time at the Org, the former option seems better to me but I'll go along with whichever choice people want.

[AussieGiant]

Hey TC,

YOU'RE A LAWYER!!

Mother of Mary :laugh4:

I'll do as you suggested and PM econ and see if he is happy with that.

Cheers

[AussieGiant]

Ok so there is not real need to PM you Econ.

As TC suggests can I send you my votes so you can do it for me?

Cheers
AG

Oh and Ituralde,

Can you PM me your voting preferences?

[econ21]

Yes, anyone can PM me with their voting preferences. I'll add them in manually when making the final tally.

[TinCow]

I'm adding the military ranks to the Library bios. In doing so, I remembered that there was some discussion about what to do with the Field Marshall rank several days ago. It was suggested that this would become an excessive position if the Household Armies were enacted. Well... how about we just give the title of Field Marshall to the commanders of the Household Armies? That's very much in-line with the intention of the FM position, since the Household Armies can't be abolished without Ducal permission and the Field Marshal exists independent of the Chancellor.

I am also going to draft a "Rule Cleanup Amendment." There seem to be a lot of Rules which have become wholey or partly obsolete as we've developed the game. There are also some that we're not using quite in the manner that we intended them to. I think we really should formally re-write them to keep them in-line with how we're playing now and to make sure that there aren't any future problems from Rule confusions or conflicts. Since this needs to be done by a formal Chartar Amendment, I'll write one up and we can vote it in, but since it's entirely OOC and rule based, can I just propose it and discuss it in here?

[Kagemusha]

Tincow.If we give the commanders of the Ducal armies,the title Field Marshall,would that also mean that The Duke couldnt change the commander of the army to another count or knight,when he would for example want the army to move into other parts of the Duchy?

[OverKnight]

I like having the rank of Feld Marshall be separate. Yeah, it wouldn't have much in game meaning, but it would be a nice honorific to have if your Avatar has been around forever and has fought many huge battles. Anyone can be a General or Commander, but you have to earn FM. Even if the only benefit is you get to tell long winded stories in the Diet about how you refused a flank and killed the Milanese Duke in one on one combat 40 years ago.

[TinCow]

I'm not saying keep the current Field Marshall rule, just call the commanders of the Household Armies Field Marshalls as a point of prestige above Army Commander.

Here's my Rule Cleanup Amendment. There's actually not as much stuff to fix as I thought.


Charter Amendment 5.3: This Amendment revises several Game Rules to keep them updated and prevent future confusions. The following Rules are revised as listed.

All lines with strikethroughs will be permanently removed.

Rule 2.4 is revised to state: 2.4 The Chancellor is elected every 10 turns. Incumbent Chancellors can run for re-election if they wish.

Rule 3.7 is revised to state: 3.7 Every 10 turns, or on the death or impeachment of the Chancellor, there is an election for the post of Chancellor. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age). Voting is open for 2 days.

Rule 5.2 is revised to state: The Emperor may automatically assume the post of Chancellor. If the Emperor chooses to do so, no Elector can run against him. The Emperor can only exercise his right of un-opposed election during the first Chancellorship term that begins immediately after his coronation. The Emperor may run in future elections, but must compete in them as normal.

Rule 6.4 will have the following words deleted from it “get a permanent +1 influence and”

Rule 6.6 is revised to state: 6.6 The title of Field Marshall shall be given to the commanders of the Household Armies for the duration of their command.

These are just proposals, so suggest more, disagree, etc.

[Ituralde]

Thanks TinCow for all the effort you put into so many parts of the game. The Library, now the guide and the revising of rules, I'm really glad we have you onboard! :2thumbsup:

Concerning the revisal of 5.2, I always understood it that the Emperor can run for Chancellor unopposed once in his lifetime, not only at the beginning of his rule. I think it said usually at the beginning, in the original rule, but this is not mandatory.

Also to what OverKnight said about building related Edicts. Your Edict about the ships was aimed primarily at Recruitment though, which is totally all right by the rules as it falls into the Chancellor's domain. Even a recommendational Edict concerning build queues can not be followed by the Chancellor. The only thing you can do is express your concerns in the Diet and hope that the appropriate Dukes/Counts listen to you.

[FactionHeir]

If the Emperor is to take chancellorship, can he be impeached during his term? I mean if noone actually wanted the emperor to become chancellor or wanted someone else to become chancellor, wouldn't people just kick the current emperor/chancellor out to force their own election?

[econ21]

Thanks, TinCow. :bow: I'll have a look at the rules again tonight and get back to you about the housekeeping ammendment.


If the Emperor is to take chancellorship, can he be impeached during his term? I mean if noone actually wanted the emperor to become chancellor or wanted someone else to become chancellor, wouldn't people just kick the current emperor/chancellor out to force their own election?

With no mid-terms any more, impeachment requires an emergency session of the Diet and only the Emperor can call that.

[FactionHeir]

Ah, so he basically couldn't get impeached eh?
So what if he then sends everyone on suicide missions (imagine an emperor being crowned who has the "Deranged" line of traits)

[OverKnight]

When does voting begin?

The rush of edicts and secondings seems to have abated.

[econ21]

I will close the Diet early this evening and put up some polling threads.

[TinCow]

Ah, so he basically couldn't get impeached eh?
So what if he then sends everyone on suicide missions (imagine an emperor being crowned who has the "Deranged" line of traits)

Well, he wouldn't be able to move the 4 commanders of the Household Armies (if that passes), so they would at least survive. Then again, if we actually had a player sending everyone on suicide missions and breaking the rules, I think we'd just kick him out of the game and move on.

[FactionHeir]

Would have supported charter amendment 5.2 if it were the original 2 votes per elector instead of 1. 1 is too little IMO, but let's see if it passes or not...

[Stuperman]

Why can't I vote?

[econ21]

Why can't I vote?

Because juniors can't vote in polls. I asked for you to be promoted a few days ago, but I guess the admins are busy. I'd recommend waiting 24 hours and if you are not promoted by then, then PM me with your votes. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Stuperman]

no problem, I was just wondering.

[OverKnight]

In the edict poll part II, edict 5.27 is listed, but is not in the poll itself.

I can certainly understand with the number of edicts that one might have been missed by accident. Or did it not have enough seconds?

[FactionHeir]

In the edict poll part II, edict 5.27 is listed, but is not in the poll itself.

I can certainly understand with the number of edicts that one might have been missed by accident. Or did it not have enough seconds?

Yup its missing and it did have 2 seconders

[Ituralde]

While we're on the Edict voting.

What about Edict 5.20? The Chancellor can't fulfill this if the Dukes and Counts don't give him appropriate build queues, so what's the sense of passing/not passing it. The Chancellor just can't control it or only to a very limitied extent in that he favours trade/harbour build queues over other build queues.

[Jalf]

I guess I see 5.20 more as a statement of intent, as in "the Diet wants to boost naval trade". And then any dukes and counts who ignore it can feel bad about going against the will of the Diet. But you're right, it can't be enforced by the chancellor.

[OverKnight]

Yeah, it's not binding, we've had that debate. I guess the Chancellor, Dukes and Counts could view it as a suggestion and implement it or ignore it at their discretion. I hope the edict ammendment will sharpen our focus when we propose edicts in the next Diet.

On an unrelated note, I'm playing, ironically enough, a Milan campaign offline. I just stormed Innsbruck killing Otto. . .felt weird. It's not relevant to anything, but it was funny.

Edit: As of my time of writing, 10 people have voted in the Chancellor elections, while 7 have voted on Edicts I and II. Odd.

[FactionHeir]

On an unrelated note, I'm playing, ironically enough, a Milan campaign offline. I just stormed Innsbruck killing Otto. . .felt weird. It's not relevant to anything, but it was funny.

Maybe that is what will happen if edict 5.3 is not passed :2thumbsup:

[TinCow]

Edit: As of my time of writing, 10 people have voted in the Chancellor elections, while 7 have voted on Edicts I and II. Odd.

It's always been my policy to abstain from some Edicts (and Motions in WOTS) that I do not wish to publicly take a stance on. In this case, there are several that Max is neutral on and will do whatever the Diet wishes, so he doesn't vote at all.

[FactionHeir]

It's always been my policy to abstain from some Edicts (and Motions in WOTS) that I do not wish to publicly take a stance on. In this case, there are several that Max is neutral on and will do whatever the Diet wishes, so he doesn't vote at all.

I hadn't actually thought of that. There were a few where I wasn't sure what to vote, but I thought I had to vote on each one of them...

[Stuperman]

While we're on the Edict voting.

What about Edict 5.20? The Chancellor can't fulfill this if the Dukes and Counts don't give him appropriate build queues, so what's the sense of passing/not passing it. The Chancellor just can't control it or only to a very limitied extent in that he favours trade/harbour build queues over other build queues.


I've brought that up a few times, no one seems to care.

Also, according to the polls, edict 5.23 was proposed by the 6th elector of Bavaria, that's me, and I didn't. It's not a big deal, just thought incorrect information in official govt records should be corrected.

[OverKnight]

Did I get the latin right? Lilirishman1986 has given the same quote but with a different latin phrasing.

Since I don't speak the language, despite a regrettable two years of it in middle school, I'm afraid I relied on internet sources for the quotation. We all know how reliable those can be. :laugh4:

Oh well, Otto did say his Latin was rusty.

Edit: Ah, found an answer. . ."This comes from a perfectly genuine medieval anecdote. In 1209, during the "Albigensian Crusade" against the Cathar heresy in Southern France, the forces of Orthodox Catholicism had been besieging the city of Beziers, defended by the Cathar heretics, for some time. Finally they breached the walls of the city and prepared to storm it. The commander of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, pointed out that not everybody in the city was a heretic, some of them were good Catholics, so how should they treat the inhabitants when they captured the city? A monk who was actually present at the siege recorded the answer of the Papal Legate to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, as "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." ("Kill them all. God will know his own." ) So the Crusaders followed his advice and killed everybody they could find in Beziers.
: : : : : : : : The Abbot presumably said it in everyday French, and the account we have is in Latin, but there seems no reason to doubt that he really did give that advice.

: : : : : : : Some sources have a different Latin for the same quote, i.e. "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." I'm guessing that different historians translated from the Fr to L according to their preference?"

2nd Edit: I credited nazgul3 with the quote when I first posted, it was actually lilirishman1986.

[econ21]

Also, according to the polls, edict 5.23 was proposed by the 6th elector of Bavaria, that's me, and I didn't.

OK, I'll correct that. Now that you are a member, I wonder if you could put "6th Elector of Bavaria" as your title in your user CP? That would help avoid mistakes like the above being repeated. No big deal if you don't want to.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Ugh, I come back to this. :wall:

Congrats to Bizzair, may you have many interesting nights ahead of you. :yes:

[lilirishman1986]

haha i see my latin caused issues

[OverKnight]

Congrats Bizzair!

Good luck, it's a shame you won't be playing, but RL takes precedence.


lilirishman1986, we had two different latin versions of the same phrase. It seems in my earlier post I mistakenly mentioned nazgul3 as the source, he posted after you in the Diet, I'll correct that now.

Welcome back GH, I'm sorry the debate and election synced poorly with your vacation.

[FactionHeir]

Bizzair, couldn't you wait till after the PBM to impregnate her?! (joking of course)
Congrats from me as well. You got a name for your newest addition yet?

[Ignoramus]

Econ, do you think we ought to have a Swabian meeting now?

[FactionHeir]

I'm kind of confused how the votes are counted as some people's votes count more than others.
More importantly, what is the actual vote to vote breakdown for the chancellor position as of now?

[TinCow]

Votes are weighted by Influence. Every person gets an automatic influence of 1. Each person can have up to 5 extra influence points based on other aspects as follows:

Appointed Influence (Max 3 points):
Duke: +2
Count: +1
Chancellor, ex-Chancellor, or Prince: +1

Stat Influence (Max 2 points):
15 or more total stat points: +1 (I thought about a lower number, but all avatars are given a base 3 piety and base 5 loyalty, which means those points are freebies. So, 15 is only 7 from actual traits, plus the 8 piety and loyalty freebies)
6 or more ranks in one stat: +1 (In the unlikely scenario where a character gets 6 or more in 2 stats without having 15 total, they get this +1 twice)

So, the most Influence a person can have is 6 (1 + 5 bonus). AFAIK, no one has yet achieved this, though there are several people with 5 points. The player who is Emperor gets bonus votes differently, being equal to his authority. (Currently 4) So, the Emperor could theoretically get 11 total Influence votes, but that is highly unlikely.

When adding up the totals for voting, the weighted Influence is controlling. You can see that particularly on 5.30, where 9 people voted yes and 8 voted no. In that case, No wins by a landslide because there are many more 'influential' voters on that side than on the Yes side. It looks like (rough estimate) that the breakdown on that vote will come out at 15 yes to 25 no.

The purpose behind the Influence votes is to add a bit of realism and competition to the game. A Duke would likely have a 'retinue' of loyal voters. Same with a Count, a Prince, and the Emperor. The stat bonuses are to mimic a retinue that results from being charismatic or otherwise convincing people by superior traits. The competition aspect of Influence comes from the fact that you simply get more influence as you rise in rank. If you want to be a powerful figure in the Diet, you want to get as high a rank as you can. If you're an Elector, do what your Duke says so that you can become a Count. If you're a Count, kiss the Duke's butt enough and he might name you his heir, making you the next Duke. Run for Chancellor and you'll get a double bonus: a permanent +1 to your Influence and the ability to fight many battles if you want (which can likely boost many stats if you do it properly).

[TinCow]

It's a slow day at work today, and I've been thinking about game mechanics a lot lately due to the Amendments we've proposed. I just re-read the WOTS post-mortem and I've got a few thoughts.

First, I think the Emperor doesn't have quite enough power. I know it was originally planned as a 'neutral' position to make sure the Houses shared evenly, but GH has really given Heinrich a personality and an agenda in his own right. I think this has added a great deal to the game and I like having a strong-willed Emperor glaring down at us. However, because he's strong-willed, it seems a bit wrong that he can be so easily hamstrung by the Diet. I've been trying to think of ways to strengthen the Emperor role without unbalancing the game. In the WOTS post-mortem, there were several mentions of a veto power. I think this could give some punch to the Emperor.

I'm thinking that perhaps we could give the Emperor the ability to determine the outome of one Edict per session; an auto-pass or an auto-fail on whatever he decides to use it on. If we want to make it a powerful 'veto' then he could exercise it after the votes are in and the issue decided, thus flipping one Edict he didn't like the result of. If we want to make it a bit less powerful, he could only exercise it by declaring it prior to voting, so he runs the risk of using it on something that would've passed anyway.

This would give the Emperor another tool with which to 'bribe' other players. For instance, if the Duke of Earl is really passionate about Edict 6.66, but it doesn't look like it will pass, he could pledge some kind of favor (deliver his Houses votes on other Edicts?) to the Emperor if the Emperor's override was used on Edict 6.66.

Second, I think we should drop the unofficial requirement that people have to have avatars before they can become Counts. We have been heavily promoting the feudal structure lately and I think it's really adding to the flavor of the game. In this Diet session in particular, we have seen the Emperor directly influencing Dukes and other Electors, and Dukes influencing their own Houses.

However, we have a lot more players at the moment than avatars. This means that Austria and Bavaria get fewer Diet votes simply because they have no Counts. At the same time, these Dukes can't reward their followers because there is nothing to reward them with. Without reward and penalty, they don't have much power to keep them in line.

There doesn't seem to be anything about the role of Count that absolutely requires an avatar, so why not let any Elector become a Count if their Duke wants to give it to them? In the WOTS post-mortem there was talk about how many people in the Upper House drifted off because they didn't have much involvement in the game. I don't want the same to happen to avatarless Electors.

These are just thoughts I've had that we might want to discuss during the coming term. We can propose them as Amendments at the next session if there is support for them. If anyone has any other ideas for gameplay tweaks, I'd like to hear them as well.

[FactionHeir]

I quite like your suggestions and feel that they would improve the game at its current state. I think that the emperor should get something else alongside the 1 edict veto though, as this position is very limited at the moment (although it is also predetermined by the game, so you can't choose to be or not be emperor). Maybe the emperor could have a power such as choosing his heir though, as I am sure in medieval ages, the king would have a say whether he wanted his eldest son to be his heir or whether he felt someone else would be better suited. Even though this would then not be represented properly in game, it would certainly add more flair to it and the differences are not that large either I suppose (just have to imagine some traits over which only leaders get)

[OverKnight]

An auto-pass or auto-fail could be dangerous for game balance. There's no check on it once invoked. For example, let's go back a few years when Max was anti-Papal and in cahoots with Heinrich and Sigismund. Sigismund proposes his DOW Rome edict. Heinrich and Max second. This edict was voted down, but if GH had the auto-pass ability, our alternative history would be even more alternative. The Reich would have been dragged into a war most of the electors voted against.

I would suggest upping the Kaiser's influence in general, right now we have Dukes and even a Count with as much influence as him. This doesn't seem right since he doesn't have a house to call on for support. Maybe the Kaiser could have the same influence modifiers for the rest of us and add his authority, or a fraction thereof, like half, to get his total influence. This would give the Emperor great influence, but it could still be checked if a majority of the electors voted against him.

As for giving nonavatar players titles, I'm all for it. I've mentioned the demographic problems for Austria and Bavaria before. This could serve as a stop gap solution until we get some more avatars.

[TinCow]

That's a very good point about the Papal war. Maybe we could restrict the 'override' in certain ways, such as it cannot be used on Edicts that declare war or peace with another faction. Another alternative would be to mimic the US Presidential veto by allowing it to trumped by a 2/3 vote of the Diet.

I personally really like linking the Emperor's influence to the "authority" trait. It's simply so well tailored to the role that I wouldn't want to change it. The only reason Heinrich doesn't have more votes is because he doesn't have a great authority stat. It's theoretically possible for the Emperor to have a weighted vote of 11 points, with 10 bonus from authority.

[FactionHeir]

Hmm yes. I'd say being Emperor should give a +4 appointed influence (1 above the normal cap) automatically in addition to other boni. So the max votes a Emperor would have is 14 (with 10 authority)

[Kagemusha]

I also like both of Tincow´s suggestions. I think that players,whether they have avatars or not,should be given more to do in the game,so im all for granting avatarles players a chance to be a Count.
I like also the Idea of giving Emperor more power. Maybe he could forcily pass a single edict per Diet if he chooses so and also maybe have a veto against a single edict. Ofcourse The Kaiser wouldnt be forced to use that power,but it would grant him more influence.

[Ituralde]

Most of TinCows suggestions sound sensible to me and like most of them. Although the veto one is debatable as OverKnight has made some good points against it. My first impression was that a single veto would not be enough, as it can be avoided by proposing enough similar Edicts on critical issues to ensure that at least one passes. To give the Emperor more power I woulg go with the more influenve approach, making his votes count all the more. I think that Authority rarely rises into the very high regions.

Of course I'm all for the new Count system and would even go a little bit further on this. Not only could avatarless players be made Count of settlements, in the event of a siege they would be able to command the garrison in the defense. Besides the low influence Austria and Bavaria get due to the lack of avatars, they are also severly limited in their expansion. Right now the top priority I have for Austria is to somehow get my two border cities defended while at the same time going on a small offensive. While challenging this is equally frustrating and if I could give settlements to Counts and they could fight the battles to defend those settlements that would be a great relieve to me and also a much bigger incentive to follow the game for avatarless players.

[OverKnight]

Of course GH has shown great restraint in not using the full power of the Emperor to advance Heinrich's personal agenda. If he had been more Machiavellian, he could have traded promises of land for edict votes and such. We should keep in mind when considering changing the Emperor's powers that many different people will hold the office. Each of those people will have a different style of play.

If we do increase the power of the Emperor, I think we should balance that out by allowing the Prinz to call emergency sessions of the Diet as well. This way if you have the Emperor serving as Chancellor there's still a brake on the power of holding two offices at once. So if the Reich is going off the rails when the Emperor is serving as Chancellor, we'll have the option of stopping play. Or maybe if all the Dukes vote to have an emergency session, that could serve as well.

[TinCow]

Oooo... I like the idea that an emergency session could be called if all 4 Dukes agree on it.

[OverKnight]

Yeah, because things would have to be going really badly for all 4 of them to agree on anything. :laugh4:

[FactionHeir]

I'd say for an emergency session that is not called by the Emperor, the requirements should be:
1. Emperor is holding both offices
2. Prince, and all 4 Dukes vote for an emergency session

I didn't include as 3. Proof of Abuse of Power, because 5 high nobilities wouldn't call an emergency session just for fun.

[Kagemusha]

I think that now that we have created actual forces the Dukes can send to war and to protect their Duchies,the increase of the Emperors power could put this game in whole another level.
Like Overknight gave us in his scenario of Kaiser forcing a war against the Papacy. Now in Current situation in that kind of case the Dukes could simply order their Ducal forces to stay in their lands and Kaiser would have to go against Papacy unsupported.
Basicly for any intellectual person,creating a situation,where he would get all/majority of his Dukes against himself as Kaiser,would mean political suicide. If the Kaiser would create this kind of situation,he would have to face the fact that possibly after the initial situation the only Edicts he would want to pass would be the one he can force to pass. And if he cant get seconders for it,not even that.:yes: Since we cant have civil wars,by granting more power to Kaiser,we would be able to create situations that are just one step behind from actual armed civil strife,if the Kaiser would take an authoritarian way of handling things .~;)

[FactionHeir]

Well Kagemusha, that's probably the question I asked before, with what if an Emperor who is also Chancellor goes on to send everyone off to suicide.
Rather than TinCow's suggestion of just moving on and kicking the player out, it would be nice to have an actual IC way of solving it instead of just saying "oh you are ruining my game, get lost".
Having those emergency meetings called by duke+prince while giving the emperor slightly more power would balance it I suppose.

Also, on retrospect, I think instead of an auto pass/fail, the emperor should be able to put 150% of his normal vote onto an edict of his choice per diet session (including emergency diet)

[econ21]

I like both of TinCow's ideas - one strong auto-pass or auto-fail; and Electors as Counts. But we need to think a little about the exact details of the auto-pass and auto-fail. You could have multiple motions to get around a veto and you could have an uber motion to abuse the auto-pass. I wonder about a simpler mechanism being giving the Emperor some power over declarations of war. Or even giving him the equivalent of a Household army. Let's chew it over for a while - we have 10 turns and there is no hurry.

I was also thinking about empowering the Prinz to call an Emergency session of the Diet to deal with a potential Imperial abuse of power. I don't think he needs 4 Dukes as well, but I'd be happy to empower 4 Dukes to call an Emergency session too.

[OverKnight]

Something to keep in mind, is that the Prinz will often be a Duke, as it is now. Perhaps 3 out of 4 Dukes then?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Actually, I have another way in mind of abusing power, so kindly refrain from making these new Amendments until I actually abuse it. :laugh4:

[TinCow]

Something to keep in mind, is that the Prinz will often be a Duke, as it is now. Perhaps 3 out of 4 Dukes then?

Not true actually. The Prince will be determined by the AI, since the &%$#$! game doesn't allow us to choose heirs anymore. Under the current system, that means the oldest natural born son, if there is one. If not, then it goes to the oldest adoptee, etc. Henry's oldest son (Hans) will come of age in 14 turns. If Heinrich lives that long, Hans will automatically become the next Prince when he eventually dies. I don't expect Hans to be Duke of Swabia at the age of 18 though. I would not be surprised if the Prince was just a Count.

For the record, I doubt the game will see more than 3 Emperors. It's definitely going slower than WOTS, but in that game we still had three of the original avatars alive at the end.

[Ituralde]

Of course GH has shown great restraint in not using the full power of the Emperor to advance Heinrich's personal agenda. If he had been more Machiavellian, he could have traded promises of land for edict votes and such. We should keep in mind when considering changing the Emperor's powers that many different people will hold the office. Each of those people will have a different style of play.


Have you ever wondered where the votes for Heinrichs Chancellorship have come from? :wink3:
I am not against GHs style of play, if anything I love it, and I think he's using is powers quite well and still I have the feeling that this is not quite enough for an Emperor, so I think there should be a way to boost his powers.

[FactionHeir]

Not true actually. The Prince will be determined by the AI, since the &%$#$! game doesn't allow us to choose heirs anymore. Under the current system, that means the oldest natural born son, if there is one. If not, then it goes to the oldest adoptee, etc. Henry's oldest son (Hans) will come of age in 14 turns. If Heinrich lives that long, Hans will automatically become the next Prince when he eventually dies.

I thought it was the oldest son regardless whether adopted or natural? So Sigismund would become heir.
And (sadly) I think GH will pass in 12 turns max. I only ever had 1 emperor live to the age of 63. Having him live to 62 is already quite a feat if most die at 60.5 or 61, unless the next chancellor (not this one) wants to keep loading the previous autosave to force the emperor to live longer (or shorter if he so desires)

[GeneralHankerchief]

And (sadly) I think GH will pass in 12 turns max. I only ever had 1 emperor live to the age of 63. Having him live to 62 is already quite a feat if most die at 60.5 or 61.

A Kaiser, FactionHeir, is never young. Nor is he old. He dies precisely when he means to. :laugh4:

[FactionHeir]

Mind dying at age 62.5 or later then please? I want to see whether TinCow or I am right on the heir assumption :)

If you stick around long enough, I might even vote you at the next diet for chancellor! :D

[econ21]

Time for a new thread - we've exceeded 20 pages.