M2 HRE Test OOC Thread

I don't mind pausing the test game until the Civil War is over, but I would like to at least keep discussing potential rules. It would be great if we could jump right into a full version of this game shortly after WOTS is done.

As for the decentralized aspect... I love it, but agree that it is making the game far too slow. I very much liked the idea of Dukes having control of individual territories and I really liked the idea of a feudal hierarchy where some Dukes owe their possessions to others. I think it would be ideal if we could figure out a way to do this without having to have the 'player' ask for new orders from the Dukes every single turn.

I don't mind if we continue the trial - it does not take much of my time - but I can't see us overcoming the pacing problem with anything like our decentralised rules. Maybe some players will like that kind of pace, but I don't think it's for me.

It might be useful to think of alternative rules. But also, the trial is making me think about what it is I or others like about PBMs - and WotS in particular.

Just of the top of my head:

1) It's nice to be "King" - to play the game, for a period of time. It has to be long enough to be involving but short enough to give others a chance. 20 turns seemed right for the early game; maybe it was too long for the late game, I don't know.

2) Having the motions and voting added spice, for the same reason that playing the game in a PBM rather than solo is fun - because you are not doing the "same old, same old" strategies and ploys you do in your solo game. You might be given objectives or targets that are quite different from what you are used to.

3) Playing battles with your general was fun - you get to play the game, if only for a night, even when you are not king. The incentive of getting battles also was perhaps the strongest driver behind the politics in the PBM.

4) Writing - and reading - stories was fun. We maybe did not do that enough in the WotS but some good stuff has come up with the Civil War.

5) Roleplaying your character was fun - some people created very memorable characters, as evidenced in the HoF nominations.

6) Watching your character grow and climb up the ladder of Roman leadership traits (tribune => legate => praetor etc) was fun. (Although we did rather jump over that towards the end).

Decentralisation does not seem "central" to any of the above. I can see Lucjan's point that tying you to a place may help you roleplay your character and shape the politics. But it is only one dimension that could define your character - and not even a dimension explicit in the game (there are no titles per se). We could device an age/rank mechanic like the Roman leadership traits; we could emphasise the piety/chivalry/loyalty stats and try to build on them.

Perhaps we should brainstorm ideas that enhance the half a dozen fun things I've listed about PBMs (and any other desirable aspects of PBMs that people identify). For example, how could we encourage more story writing or more vivide characters?

If a key driver in WotS was the chance for your general to fight battles, perhaps we should focus ideas around that, rather than around somewhat arbitrary attachments to place. For example, could we work out a system of promotions: squire => knight => Duke => Chancellor or something? The expectation would be that younger generals would hang out with an older one (like the Tribunes in WotS) and gradually inherit their commands? (Vices and virtues seem to conspire to cripple governors who stay at home). Promotions could even be things people voted on, so you would have to make a case for your promotion. They could be based on your tactical skills, on your writing skills (bard?), on your wisdom in guiding the discussion of statecraft, as well as on your lobbying and the power of your sponsor(s).

Basically, I think we should continue to explore the decentralisation issue but also think about alternative or supplementary means to improve on WotS.

Personally, I liked the way the WotS was set up. Although it was created for purely practical reasons, the two-tiered House(Upper and Lower) added diversity to the Senate. And the thought of getting oneself elected as consul to play the game how you wanted to was a huge incentive for roleplay and participation.

In the Middle Ages, however, we obviously cannot do this. Therefore we decided that we would opt for a more decentralised game using the feudal system which also would increase player participation. However, what I see to be the problem is a question of too much participation. To put it quite simply, there is no incentive to "cooperate to gain power". There is no advantage to be "emperor", so why should you listen to others? In a sense this is no longer one PBeM played by many people; it is many PBeMs played each by one person. Due to game mechanics Dukes cannot fight other Dukes, so who's to stop them doing what they want?

A few ideas from my bus ride home today...

First, I like the feudal idea. I like the simplicity of the lord-vassal relationship and think it creates an easy-to-weild political structure. I think a creative use of it solves a lot of the problems we're running into.

That said, here are a couple of possibilities...

Council of Nobles

The Council of Nobles becomes an integral part of the game, being composed of a 3-5 member group (depending on how many players we have). Each Council member is the top Duke of a feudal "tree" made up of his vassals and his vassals' vassals, etc. More below on this...

Staying In Office

The immediate problem with the feudal system is that the people on top will tend to stay on top for a long time if there isn't a mechanism for knocking them off (besides them dying). I'd suggest that a modified version of econ's idea for advancement be used for recycling leadership as well.

Periodically (every 10 or 20 turns?) an OOC poll goes up asking for votes on who has been the best writer, or general, or wisdom-giver, or politician, etc since the last vote. Only one of these categories would be voted on per poll (i.e. best writer one week, best general two weeks later, etc).

The votes are simply tallied and added to each Duke's total for the category in question -- that is, there is no "grand total" of vote points, only totals for each category. Then the top 3-5 of these Dukes for this category get swung up to the top of their feudal "tree", and each tree is re-ordered based on the vote points for that vote category.

A vote for Chancellor is taken between these top Dukes, and then a new reign begins.

Simplicity

I suggest two major simplifications to the current system, and a single clarification:

1. The top duke in each feudal tree executes orders for his tree (i.e. actually plays the game, trading the save with other Council of Nobles dukes). The Chancellor is one of these Council of Nobles dukes, and so executes orders for both his vassal tree as well as the Empire.
2. The spendable finances of the Empire are split evenly each turn amongst all Council members, regardless of local earnings. The Chancellor receives a double share, ostensibly to be used for the Empire's dealings (though it might be interesting to allow the Chancellor to fix the books a bit).
3. The Council members will work out what part of their finances goes to which of their vassal Dukes on a periodic basis (perhaps every turn, but most likely every few turns).

Fun

econ's list is ideal on this point. I think the suggestions above fit nicely with most of the areas he mentioned.

1) being "king" -- having the Council members all share control of the game distributes this so that even more players have the chance to play the game, as well as feel like they are truly in control of part of the world.

2) motions and voting -- while completely different from the Senate version of this, voting on player performance rather than motions will I think be empowering to players, giving each a chance for fame. Also, motions could be proposed and voted on for the Empire, and/or within each lord-vassal tree, to give each player a chance to show their political savvy, or wisdom.

3) playing battles -- each Duke can of course strike out on his/her own and fight, but the above also gives each Duke a greater chance to control larger feudal or imperial forces.

4) encouraging writing -- if one of the categories is indeed "best writer", then we have an encouragement of writing as an integral part of the game, determining who will sit at the top of the feudal chain.

5) encouraging roleplaying -- perhaps one of the categories could be "best character"? Even if not, the voting system gives a lot of drive to be a strongly typed character.

6) climbing the ladder of success -- again, the voting mechanic handles this well.

Egads, that was long.

That sounds good, but I think that voting for the people in the Council of Nobles seems to be a bit strange.

What I suggest is that we have 5 core Dukes: Swabia, Bavaria, Saxony, Lotharingia, and Franconia.

"Will continue later"

Hmmm... I very much like the idea of a system where the Dukes are feudal heads who make the decisions for their vassals. I think that adds some variety to keep this from just being WOTS in castles. Let's explore this some more.

I also like the idea of dukes being feudal heads of territory who lead their vassals towards their collective goals. But I think Econ hit the nail on the head with how I feel the decentralisation should be played out with this statement.

Quote:

---

Perhaps we should brainstorm ideas that enhance the half a dozen fun things I've listed about PBMs (and any other desirable aspects of PBMs that people identify). For example, how could we encourage more story writing or more vivide characters?

If a key driver in WotS was the chance for your general to fight battles, perhaps we should focus ideas around that, rather than around somewhat arbitrary attachments to place. For example, could we work out a system of promotions: squire => knight => Duke => Chancellor or something? The expectation would be that younger generals would hang out with an older one (like the Tribunes in WotS) and gradually inherit their commands? (Vices and virtues seem to conspire to cripple governors who stay at home). Promotions could even be things people voted on, so you would have to make a case for your promotion. They could be based on your tactical skills, on your writing skills (bard?), on your wisdom in guiding the discussion of statecraft, as well as on your lobbying and the power of your sponsor(s).

---

Perhaps a system where the chancellor's authority is alternated between the leading dukes of the era, whose own power is based on the influence of themselves and their vassals. Influence could be measured by vote acquired traits.

Here are some ideas.

Vote Acquired Title Heirarchies and their effects, and some other situational ideas. (These will all be voted on with an OOC vote, based on IC character's actions and performance.)

Duke of "" = +3 Influence (+4 for administrative edicts)
Count of "" = +2 Influence (+3 "")
Baron of "" = +1 Influence (+2 "")
Landless Vassals
(Based on IC player connections to other players. Heck, if enough people think you're worthy of being a count, you'll get voted to be a count. However, I feel there should be a "population cap" for dukes, say, 1 duke for every x number of provinces.)

General = Lead a full stack army. +3 Influence (+4 for military edicts)
Knight = Lead an army up to 3/4 stack size. +2 Influence (+3 "")
Marshall = Lead an army up to half-stack size. +1 Influence (+2 "")
Sheriff = Lead an army up to 1/4 stack size. (+1 "")
Squire = Can only accompany a hirer ranking officer.
(Based on strategic/tactical skills/suggestions)

Beurocrat = +3 Influence (+4 for legislative edicts)
Councilman = +2 Influence (+3 "")
Public Speaker = +1 Influence (+2 "")
(Based on persuasion skills.)

Eloquent = +3 Influence
Bardic = +2 Influence
Taleteller = +1 Influence
(Based on stories and writeups.)

Prophetic = +3 Influence
Wise = +2 Influence
Intuitive = +1 Influence
(Just generally wisdom related. For example, characters who suggest marching a half stack army into battle against two full stacks and a castle won't be seeing these traits. :laugh4: )

Defender of the Faith - Can give orders to priests/cardinals/inquisitors (would require certain traits/piety). +1 Influence
Monopolist - Can give merchants missions (would require certain management virtues). +1 Influence
Dread Practicioner - Can give assassins missions (would require a certain level of dread). +1 Influence
"Informed" - Can give spies missions (would require certain scouting virtues).
{*} +1 Influence

Crusades = In order to lead a crusade a character must be of a certain level of piety.

Princesses = In order to wed a princess and enter the royal line a character must be in good standing with the emperor, must be at least a count, and must be at least a knight.

* - These agents would be given their order when they are in the same city/army stack as the commanding player, the agent must then go and attempt to carry out that task, if they succeed, or they fail and survive, they must return to the player before the player can give them further orders. If they die, they die... This allows some players to have direct control over private agents while not inundating the chancellor with constant orders for agents all the time because it requires the agent to go perform the task and then return before new orders can be issued. Of course, all agents will have to be commissioned by the chancellor, and assigned to the player after an ooc vote deemed his IC character worthy of such a title. Just an idea, but one worth looking into.

What does everybody think?

I think this would be a great way to combine a push for more IC stories and character development, make use of the feudal system, and maintain the simplicity of the wots's original idea while still putting a stronger sense of decentralisation out there. What I mean by putting a stronger sense of decentralisation out there is that a player's influence in passing motions and such will no longer be dictated by the game mechanics, but rather by the way they play their character.

Well, I just ordered my copy of MTW2 with my Christmas money so time for me to join in ~:)

I gotta say, reading some of the proposals here, my eyes start to glaze over....to complicated for a simpleton like me!

What I liked about TWOTS was that it enabled me to participate in a PBEM without the large amount of time playing a reign involves (especially in the mid-late game). Now, as it turned out, I played very few battles (and managed to lose most of them, but lets not go there!)

I certainly think that the concept of having one player fighting all the battles during his reign has been superceded by the much superior system of having various characters fight their battles themselves. But then having come to the conclusion that the system you're running for the HRE game is too complicated, all the proposals since them seem to be just as complicated.

I would like to see a hybrid game run under the following system:

Replacing the lower and Upper houses, you have the Royal and non-Royal players. Royals belong to the line of direct descendants of the King. non-royals are all those in the family tree who are not directly in line for the throne. At first there may not be many "non-royals" until the family tree expands.

Those who are Royals get to to play their reigns as and when they come to the throne - note, not all Royals will gain the throne, depending on the vagaries of succession. Non-Royals will form the council of nobles, or if we play as say, England, Parliament. They will have the authority to table motions making requests of the King, decide upon taxes etc. Foreign wars may not be undertaken without the consent of parliament etc.

Like I say, I think England would be an ideal candidate for this. It strikes a balance between a ruler controlling the game, and all the other players having an input as to how the kingdom is run.

The other option is to go the Venetian route, and elect a Doge - in effect a monarch for life. I'm not as informed about how much power the Venetian Great Council had compared to the English Parliament, so I can't make suggestions as to what they can and can't do.

My other suggestion is that those with the most time to play the game (eg econ21) have reigns in the mid-late game when it takes a lot of time, and those of us with less time get a stab at things early on.

I think our test run demonstrated a need to stick more closely to the original WotS idea, but I would still like to make the idea of character development and personally developed influence an important part of the new pbem. So, does anybody have any further opinion to add to what I suggested last, with the influence points being distributed by votes on personal accomplishments and such, and the options I put forth?

I think it's great Lucjan, sorry I did not post up earlier. I think it's solid enough to be understandable without being over-done. Well thought out.

Mount brings up a good point -- if we're going to pull in people not already involved (or even keep the ones already here), these mechanisms need to be transparent to a new player. Whenever we get to the end of this definition road, someone will need to write up a guide for new players, detailing in very clear terms what is expected of the different levels of players on a single turn, how influence is determined, how they can climb the "feudal" ladder, etc.

I think that Mount Suribachi has come up with a good idea. I think that we should also divide the non-Royal generals into Dukes and Knights. Dukes govern a province, while Knights are in control of the King's armies.

I agree with Mount's suggestions about simplicity. However, I see a problem with the Monarch playing the game for the duration of his reign. That problem is simply that family members live for a bloody long time! It would be entirely possible to play most of the game with only 1 monarch and actively likely that we would only get through 2 or 3. The entire WOTS has lasted only about 120 in-game turns, which equates to 60 years of character aging for M2TW. With a single monarch playing for their entire reign, there won't be much variety at all.

This could be checked if there was an set internal system for overthrowing an unpopular monarch, but even then I think it would result in too much focus on 1 or 2 players. The WOTS elections provided for a great deal of role-playing for the game and I think the game will suffer if we don't allow it.

I think the system we've been working with already for supreme control over the game would be best. Let there be an election for 'Chancellor' or some other titled position which then controls the game. To mimic the power of the monarch, we can give him a veto power over legislation or some other type of perk.

Perhaps we could make a rule that the King must not hold back in battle, but be the first to charge, the last to retreat etc. That way the rule should exchange hands quite often.

Its a fair point about only 2 or 3 monarchs per MTW2 game. A way round it would be the suggested Venice game - the Doge was meant to be an eldery man. So if we have a min age = 55 requirement for the Doge, that should increase the turnover at the top.

Also, aren't there mods out already to fix the years thing? How does that impact the lifespans of monarchs?

AFAIK, changing the length of the turns has no effect on the aging of family members. They age at the rate of 1 year per 2 turns, no matter how long the turns are. That's why they live so ridiculously long in the vanilla game, because they only age 1 year for every 4 years of in-game time. If you changed the timespan to 4 turns per year, they would age 1 year in half a year of in-game time.

I've been thinking a bit about how to build on, or in some cases mimic, the Will of the Senate model, without leading to excessive complexity.

So far, I've come up with the following (I'm still thinking HRE):

Base model: Everything the same as the Will of the Senate (except nomenclature) unless altered below.

Fighting battles: I think parcelling out battles to players may be the core feature of the WotS model. It gives non-reigning players something to do and connects you with your avatar. But I wonder if we should share them out more equally? One mechanic would be:
Each avatar should have a 10 turn "tour of duty", followed by a 10 turn period of "leave".
This overlaps nicely with a 10 turn mid-turn. Typically, avatars on leave should govern "their" settlements. I am not sure if leave should extend to Chancellors.

Governors govern: forget about decentralisation, except that:
Governors (who remain in a settlement for more than 2 turns) should have the power to set taxes and build queues for the settlement they are in. The Chancellor should explicitly appoint governors - notifying them of their appointment or removal.
The reigning player (I am going to call him Chancellor still), can always decide not to build anything or remove the governor. To make it less problematic to administer, every 10 turns, the governor should specify a tax rate and a build queue. The Chancellor can micromanage it in consultation (ie with the assent of) with the governor if he wishes, and the governor can delegate all decisionmaking to the Chancellor if he wishes.

Mimic "influence"
Voting will be influence weighted with influence being equal to maximum military influence plus maximum civic influence.
Military titles give military influence; civic ones give civic influence; both are capped at 3. But only one military title and one civic one may count to influence; so maximum influence is +6.
Chancellors get +3 civic influence; ex-Chancellors have +2 civic influence.
Emperors have +3 civic influence; Princes +2 civic influence.

Mimic the "Roman leadership" traits
A knight (think Tribune) is an avatar that has participated honorably in a battle (e.g. his escort did a valiant charge) - he is knighted by the general leading the battle (battlefield promotion) and gets +1 military influence
A general is an avatar that leads a stack of 5+ units, ie an army, in the field and can fight a battle. He must first be a knight and is appointed by the Chancellor, getting +2 military influence. Generals can decide what to do with captured prisoners, but not whether to sack etc settlements (Chancellor decides).
A field marshall is an avatar that leads a "standing army" in the field (think legion). He must be a general who has won five major battles (each against >10 enemy units) and is appointed by the Chancellor. His army should be named and should be kept up to strength by the Chancellor, unless the field marshall agrees. The Field Marshall cannot be removed from command of the army except by going on leave - it is "his" (in his absence, his army can only be commanded by a general - it cannot be appropriated by another Field Marshall). He gets +3 military influence. Field Marshalls can decide whether to occupy, sack or exterminate settlements they capture.
Note - all promotions are permanent and irreversible (generals without armies still get the +3 influence, rather like "former legates").

The Emperor is the PBM overlord (think Senate Speaker)
He has the powers of the WotS Senate Speaker, plus:
He has the option to be Chancellor for 20 turns once in his lifetime, at a time of his choosing (the expectation is that he should do it immediately on coming to power, to get it "out of his blood" and allow him to be more disinterested & impartial).
He creates Counts and Dukesby granting settlements to avatars.
He has a son - the Prince - who deputises and succeeds him.
He gets +3 civic influence.

Counts and Dukes
The Emperor can reward an avatar with a settlement, making him a "free hold Count". Counts have first refusal on being the settlement governor. They have +1 civic influence.
If the Emperor rewards an avatar with a second (or more) settlement, that makes him into a Duke. Dukes have +2 civic influence. Dukes can give settlements to other players, making them "bonded Counts".
Bonded Counts have the powers for regular (freehold) Counts, but may have their settlement removed at the discretion of the supervising Duke.
First born natural sons inherit their fathers titles on death; if there are no natural sons, then adopted ones inherit; if no adopted ones, then sons-in-laws
I hope these powers of Dukes will create feudal "factions". Bonded counts may be expected to vote with Dukes or fear for their tenure. Inheritance laws may make players pay more attention to the family tree.

No Upper House
I don't think this worked well. All players should have M2TW and be able to download savegames to make informed decisions.
Avatars of players who don't want to fight battles within 48 hours can go on "leave", even indefinitely.

Difficulty
Hard campaigns, very hard battles? To try to get less pyschotic AI diplomacy (I am even tempted by medium campaigns for that reason, but Lucjan says its too easy).

I think the above, integrated with the standard Will of the Senate rules, should provide a simple and fun basis for a PBM. The Chancellor and Emperor will both have considerable powers of patronage, which should make for some interesting politics and provide some characterful touches. (Although hopefully restrained - I don't want this PBM to collapse into a civil war for at least 6 months!).

What the above does not really tackle is how to increase role-playing and story-telling beyond what we had in the WotS. But I am not sure trying to do it mechanically by votes or influence is the way to go. Role-playing and story-telling is a creative process and I am not sure we can force it too much in advance. Based on our experience with WotS we probably have a better sense of the opportunity for these things. And we probably don't need in-game rewards for doing them - doing them is fun, it's its own reward[1]. The best thing is probably just for players to lobby the Chancellor or Diet to try to get their avatar into fun situations; or even go out of character to other players and set up some scenario that is conducive to that.

[1]On reflection, perhaps the Emperor could hand out settlements based partly on such considerations? I envisage the Emperor being a rather disinterested character, rather like the Senate Speaker, and should hand out settlements for the general good of the PBM rather than for political patronage.

Yay! I can join this! I have MTW2! Err, can I?

:beam:

One thing I don't much like is not having an in-character excuse to do something. 10-turn forced leave falls under this category. "Oh, the French are marching on Frankfurt with a giant army, but our greatest general was in the field only 8 turns ago! Let's entrust the defense to this inexperienced general instead." Doesn't make sense. ~:)

Of course, we just need to develop proper excuses. In case of an invasion, the leave rules should not be in effect. In fact, we shouldn't call it "leave" at all, but simply a reassignment to a reserve command. I don't think this should be a fixed 10 turns active, 10 turns reserve rule, but instead that rule should be followed only if there are enough generals in the active command. The chancellor should be able to activate reserve generals when he needs more active generals. But, under normal circumstances, he should be encouraged to rotate generals. We may run into a situation where we don't actually have enough generals, just as easily as the opposite. The rules should remain flexible.

My suggestions, made in the TWOS post-mortem thread, focused more on permanently getting older generals with many battles out of the way if there are young generals without commands. But, instead of forcing them to go on leave (a bad thing), they can be given even more important commands (a good thing). It really comes down to a slight decentralization of the army structure. This particularly applies as the Empire gets big. The army as a whole could be divided into a few commands, which could be given to older generals. Those generals would not fight battles, but only give specific orders to subordinate generals. This is what I'm thinking:

Back when Servius became Consul, and the Seleucids invaded Thrace, I believe it was Cornelius Saturnius who sat out of that fight because much of his army had been used to reinforce mine. We only had enough troops for two armies. What could have happened instead is that I could have been assigned to be the Commander of all the Army in the East, or something equally fancy that really means that it would be my character sitting in the town nearby, while the two younger generals command the armies. I expect that Servius would give me an order like "Expel the Seleucids from Thrace, you have this and that unit under your command." I would then take a good look at the map, come up with a super great plan, and then give the orders to the armies, which really meant sending orders to Servius, who would make the little men on the map dance as I said, and pass around savegames. That way, the two younger generals get to fight the battles, and I get all the glory. :laugh4:

So, my point is that there can be a structure of rank beyond a single-stack commander. There should, of course, be a limited number of these, and I suspect that the Senate should be the one to appoint generals to those positions. That only need happen once the starting generals start to get too experienced, and if younger generals are lacking field assignments.

Actually, I won't be able to. Need to work on this mod.

@ Hannibal99
What is this mod you are working on?

Also, can I join this? Can I please play as an Duke?

Err, mod is on hold, so I'm joining.

Could I be duke as well?

All the ideas gathered here sound very interesting. I especially like the approached taken by Sasaki and the addition FLYdude made to them.
I would like to join in this game once an avatar becomes available.
In my opinion the focus should be on the HRE as it lends itself well to have a mixture between feudal and hereditary structures while also having the Reichstag and elected offices.

I was wondering if there are any plans concerning the version of M2:TW you want to play the game with. Patch 1.1 obviously? Or maybe use one mod or another. Especially the ProvinceTitleProject comes to mind, which would also assist with the appointment of governors/Dukes/Counts.

Cheers!

Ituralde

I agree 100% with everything econ has proposed, and I like flydude's suggestions for revision as well.

I think we've got our golden project with this one gentlemen. Maybe econ could grace us with running a second test using these rules and flydudes suggested ammendments?

Edit - As far as increased roleplaying goes. I think the best of this happened naturally, creatively, as with the rather random idea of the servius/marcellus/oppius meeting, and then the great stories that came about with the civil war stories thread, which were all creative, unique and interesting in their own right. And might I add, unprovoked and rather numerous. Let's just try this new idea out and see where it flies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

I agree 100% with everything econ has proposed, and I like flydude's suggestions for revision as well.

I think we've got our golden project with this one gentlemen. Maybe econ could grace us with running a second test using these rules and flydudes suggested ammendments?

---

Good, I am glad we are moving towards a consensus. Let's chew this over a couple of days more - I would like to hear TinCow's reaction, for example. Then I'll start a new thread. I think we should just start the real thing. The WotS is over and I don't think we need another test as we are probably avoiding anything too radical like settlement level accounting.

When I start a new thread, there will be two main orders of business:
(a) finalising the rules
(b) fixing a play list
I think done a lot on (a); on (b), I just don't know how many players will want to join. If there are too many, we may even want to think about a second simultaneous M2TW PBM. We lost a lot of WotS players who were frustrated waiting around for avatars.

I wonder how far has anyone got with HRE in solo play? It would be good if someone who has got quite far could upload a savegame. I'd like to see how things look - esp. the family tree - to see how many players we could accommodate.

Well, the HRE is quite the hard faction. I only had one campaign as them, but were attacked by everyone, and threatened excommunication. It should be a challenge. Heres an HRE game I played (using cheats, it was my first game, so bear with me :laugh4: )

https://img524.imageshack.us/img524/...troopersa7.jpg

Yikes! Thanks for that, Patriach of Constantinople.

How many generals did you have by turn 50, just out of interest? You seem to have about 15 provinces (anyone know the typical ratio of provinces to generals? I'm guessing it's around 3:2.) I'm thinking of player numbers and avatars here.

Can anyone else report on HRE solo games? Is medium campaigns too easy? If it is not, I would like to try that as the diplomacy may be more interesting.

Family tree (that should include generals I guess)

https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/...troopertv5.jpg

https://img412.imageshack.us/img412/...troopercn4.jpg

Thanks, so we may have about 9 living generals after 50 turns (ratio of generals to provinces is 50% in this instance).

Yes, it really matters. Put your general in constant dangers, BAM, they're all dead. However, keep them safe and use them in know-you-are-winning battles. Heres my top general:

https://img407.imageshack.us/img407/...trooperur4.jpg

With a full stack at the Danish border.