I personally wouldn't mind a little bit more expansion either, letting some settlements rebel sounds like it could be interesting, although some preperation may be necessary.
Printable View
I personally wouldn't mind a little bit more expansion either, letting some settlements rebel sounds like it could be interesting, although some preperation may be necessary.
Aye, we will need to look which settlements are more rebellious and which not.
Sides a Bavarian settlement won't rebel if Hans doesn't become Kaiser. Bern would rebel. Same for Siegfried, why would Budapest rebel? The people in Stettin haven't been happy for quite some time, maybe they would finally rebel.
I'm not sure I follow this logic. How does a different Kaiser mena more/less rebellion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
EDIT: Thanks again TC for the Library Updates, it sounds like it's a huge job!!!
This is essentially a question as to whether we want to end the game or not. We've managed to get ourselves into a position where if we continue to expand slowly or not at all, we will keep getting assaulted from all sides on a regular basis, providing battles for those who wish to fight them, as well as the politics that results from war. If we expand again, we will simply shatter this balance and there won't be any point in continuing the game much longer. Look at the current power charts if you need proof. We are already so much more powerful than everyone else, that it's only our own internal restraints that are keeping us from walking all over everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
So the question the becomes, what is more enjoyable: continuing to play like we are currently, or starting over?
My vote is very strongly behind continuing this game. As we've seen from WOTS and KOTR, the vast majority of the fun factor in these games is from role-playing and IC politics. Getting the victory screen has absolutely no importance. We have now come to a point where the internal politics are very complex, the alliances convoluted, and the intrigue palpable. These things do not evolve instantly, because it takes time for people to get a feel for their characters and figure out where they want to go. If we restart, everything will have to be started over from scratch. On top of that, restarting means going back to having far too few avatars for players. We seem to be at the sweet spot right now, where we have a couple more avatars than players, allowing everyone a chance to participate fully. Starting a new game means some people may have to wait several months again to get new avatars.
So, I would like us to stick with this game for a good while longer, which means no more serious expansion. I am all for letting places rebel and generally reducing the size of the HRE. That was something I was pursuing with my proposed starvation of Outremer. If you can figure out another IC way to do it, I'm all for it. I would be happy to see settlements rebel, but it seems to me that it has to be done by legislation, otherwise the Chancellor will be impeached just like Ulrich.
I didn't say that, all I said was that when Hans becomes Kaiser mostlikely cities with loads of Siegfried followers (ie. cities of counts that voted for Siegfried) will rebel. And vica versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
Next to that there are enough settlements that won't just rebel, most castles have happy people.
I like TC's points for continuing the game. Things are well developed at this point without being too stagnant. As for letting territory rebel, the problem with that is every house/Outremer would not want to let their own territory go but would probably be happy to see the rest of the Reich burn. This is not a criticism but an observation on how people are playing regionalism IC. I know Jan could care less if half of the European settlements fell away but he would argue passionately that Outremer needs to stay the size it is. And the rest of the Franconians probably wouldn't care if the rest of the Reich whithers but they would be reluctant to give up Thorn. The same with Austria with Budapest or Bavaria with Corsica or Swabia with Paris. We have constructed in game rewards for regionalism therefor many people have become regionalists instead of nationalists. If we want that to change, we'll have to change the attitude IC and maybe change the game mechanics so there is less of a reward. Just like Lothar's CA trying to take some of the rewards out of Outremer. If you lessen the prize, you may change the behavior.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thorn, Budapest and Corsica are not the settlements to give up. Certainly not Thorn and Budapest, looking how they have been defended and won.
And Paris is not Swabian, it's Imperial the last time I looked.
My only point was to highlight the problem of regionalism if you wish to give up territory. You actually prove my point beautifully with your defense. People on here are OOC talking about giving some territory up to make things last longer and be more challenging. While I support that OOC, we IC play regionalists who would not want our own territory to be lost. If we want an OOC result, we need to find some way to change our IC behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Yup, but than what territory is there to rebel?
The rebellious cities are not really the ones you named. Marseille, Milan and such, those are rebellious, normally speaking they would have more chance to rebel.
Sides we might be smart and let them rebel, but have you seen the enemy. We can't let Hamburg rebel, the Danes will take it, same for Thorn and the Poles and Budapest and the Hungarians. Surely the idea is rebelling and taking them back ourselves
Well, thats what we would have to figure out. TC said he is for the actual reduction in Empire size and I agree. But, I have been pointing out a difficulty in this. Because there are people IC who would not want to do it, like Ansehelm and Jan. So, OOC we need to figure out a way to convince the Ansehelms and Jans of the world to do it IC.
If you want to lose settlements and make the game more interesting without having to pick specific regions, I've got a method: We create a catastrophic event.
We simply disband every single last military unit except for 1 militia in each city and 1 infantry in each castle. Call it plague, rebellion, desertion, bankruptcy, whatever you want. The AI armies and unrest due to low garrisons will take care of the rest. We would probably need to limit recruitment as well, say only 1 unit per settlement per turn for the next 10 turns, or maybe only 10 units per turn faction-wide.
Yes but that can't be done can it, seeing the Horse Lords, the Russian Crusade and the reinforcements.
Just up the taxes and see what happens, that can be far more realistic.
Why can't it be done? Because we'll lose settlements to the Mongols? That's the entire point!
one point, if we lose too many settlements, it may compound our avatar problems. I hate to say this as a Bavarian, but northern Italy could rebel very easily, Long term it might be easier to let it rebel, then re-take and exterminate.
The avatar problem is a good point. We want to shrink the game to the size that it becomes more challenging but still have the game big enough to provide us with enough avatars to offer to those who want to play.
I'm stumped...
but personally, i like the direction the game is going. if we shrink the size and let cities rebel it just gets boring, like "why did we take it if we just let it rebel?" i would rather have a slow movement towards victory than taking a step back
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
I'm inclined to agree a little bit, I still think that a a large scale rebellion would be fun to rp/necessary for challenge/interesting to engineer. But not just yet, maybe we should pick a number of settlements (like 44, one less than victory condition), then when we have that many have all the duchies lose 3 or 4 settlements each (decided OOC of course). I'd be interesting to lose many of the interior settlements and try and re-conquor them while defending our rather large boarders.
you guys still have the black death event to look forward to right? it will be exciting with the HRE military entirely dependent on the economy while the AI get money from God, you will have some tough fight then.
We are at a delicate point in the actual game.
As I have said in a few of my larger "gaming theory" posts, the game is simply the mechanism for us to enjoy ourselves.
If we destroy the actual game them we destroy our ability to role play.
It is with no surprise that with our stalled expansion, the in game mechanics of the Mongols and the money we are giving the AI, we now have had one of the best periods in the game to date.
The mind boggles at the amount of legislation we have, and the OOC knowledge you need to have in order to function effectively at voting time is staggering.
At one province per 10 years per house front, we are certainly having the time of our lives and I don't recommend any "feeling" of too few offensive battles getting the better of something we have good control of.
If people want offensive battles then get your trousers out East. Attack a few Mongol stacks. In essence the Reich is in defensive mode and it should remain that way. Another option would be to join Stigs crusade. Who know's what will happen there.
I personally want to see the Tirumad (can't spell them for the life of me) and potentially the New World. Plus I really want to fight with gun powder units.
There is so much to look forward to that I really recommend patience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
God, I even forgot about that!! That's going to be great fun too.
thats gonna be a fun time...
We might want to get some legislation in place that mandates that our avatars have to be out of settlements at that point. The game would get pointless if we all lost our avatars. Or at least some OOC agreement that even the Chancellor can't override seeing as that is a "survival of the game" issue. If people want their avatars to go into plague cities, thats their business, but we should be able to keep our whole family line alive if we stay out in the woods until the little rat disappears. At least thats what I've done in my SP games.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I agree with Stuperman, a mass rebellion might be fun, but not just yet. I think the game is interesting enough at the moment. TC's mechanics for a cataclysmic event sound fine.
The obvious thing to coincide a mass rebellion (which takes the form of disbanding garrisons) with is the plague, but that's in 1350 and we are only in 1260.
If people want it sooner, it could coincide with some in character dispute - like the Hummel impeachment or the Siegfried succession. But I would prefer to avoid player vs player battles - as I think they will mark the end of the game - so it might take some preparation and scripting to work out a good story. I can see one opportunity in a couple of months.
Finally, we could time it to coincide with the third wave of Mongols. This would not be an IC thing, but more an OOC one to increase the challenge. (The present second wave has been severely depleted).
This might be a good subject for an OOC poll.
OOC Poll: Choose one of the following:
1. Mass rebellion now (Siegfried succession).
2. Mass rebellion in two months time.
3. Mass rebellion when 3rd wave of Mongols arrives.
4. Mass rebellion coinciding with plague.
5. No mass rebellion.
Note: if voted for, a mass rebellion will be organised by Econ21 by disbanding all garrisons to one unit. Unit recruitment (including mercs) will be limited to ten per turn for 10 turns.
We could use the poll to see which is the most popular option of (1) to (5). If it is not (5), we could put the option forward as an OOC CA with a simple yes/no question requiring a 2/3 majority to pass.
Is there a third Mongol wave? In my sp games there are only two 4 stack waves that usually end up consolidating to one 8 stack line of horsey death. Every single time I have killed all 8 stacks, I have never seen another.
1350 is not really that far away. The Black Plague will occur less than 5 Chancellorship terms from now, which is equivalent to the time between the Crusade to take Jerusalem and the present. Maybe 2-3 months of play time.
Shortly after the Plague, we also get hit by the Timurids. I would say that would be the perfect time to engineer a revolt or other 'cataclysm.' Lump them all together into a period so utterly traumatic for the Reich that it drastically reduces our size and causes problems for decades afterwards. If we do that, we will then have more than enough stuff to keep us busy through the New World.
So, all we have to do is keep going until 1350. If we really decide to give the Reich a huge whack on the head at that point, I don't see any problems with resuming a slow expansion right now. For example, adding 2 settlements each Chancellorship Term until the Plague won't ruin the game as long as we don't kill off too many factions and so long as we then 'lose' those provinces and more when the 'bad years' come along.
FH has confirmed that the game mechanics have 3 of the little things horsey stacks lined up normally.
I think that for the next PBM we should consider using a mod. Right now I'm trying out Deus lo Vult and it looks perfect for the kind of PBM we want.
First of all it would provide or in-game factors for roleplaying, such as procincial ancillaries, famous swords, a career ladder for generals, choosing between general and governor when a character comes of age, and even a trait that signifies how closely related a character is to the original monarch.
It would also provide slower pacing, something that, from what I've heard, was also a problem in WOTS. This is accomplished by having 2 turns per year with 900 turns per game, adjusting the build time upward, and subtracting varying amount of money for each army in the field. Sieges, for example, cost an automatic 2000 florins per turn.
I urge everyone to give this mod a try and contribute your opinions, as it deserves serious consideration for whatever's planned after KOTR.
But I think it will seriously weaken the French and the Huns, probably the Poles too, with the 2 settlements per term case. Although I think you guys should really just send Igno's char back to Swabia. I think one of the reason Swabia was no able to expand the last few terms was basically the only defensive army there was control by Xdeathfire avatar, the only avatar left, and he can't go on the offensive with Paris under threat constantly.
ICly, I think some chars might be able the insinuate that the balck death was cause by the blood lust of the dread avatars? :P
We've got legislation on attacking provinces. I think 2 is too much 1 would be better I think.
A mass rebellion, together with the Timurids seem nice.
Barbarian Invasion, Migration and such.
We could do some small rebellion by Hummel and maybe Hans if Siegfried becomes Emperor (which seems to happen). Hummel can rebel the settlement he is currently in, and as a punishment he gets send back to Swabia.