When does voting begin?
The rush of edicts and secondings seems to have abated.
Printable View
When does voting begin?
The rush of edicts and secondings seems to have abated.
I will close the Diet early this evening and put up some polling threads.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
no problem, I was just wondering.
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 secondersQuote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
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 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.
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.
Maybe that is what will happen if edict 5.3 is not passed :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
Ugh, I come back to this. :wall:
Congrats to Bizzair, may you have many interesting nights ahead of you. :yes:
haha i see my latin caused issues
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.
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?
Econ, do you think we ought to have a Swabian meeting now?
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?
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).
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Oooo... I like the idea that an emergency session could be called if all 4 Dukes agree on it.
Yeah, because things would have to be going really badly for all 4 of them to agree on anything. :laugh4:
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.
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 .~;)
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)
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.
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?
Actually, I have another way in mind of abusing power, so kindly refrain from making these new Amendments until I actually abuse it. :laugh4:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
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.
Have you ever wondered where the votes for Heinrichs Chancellorship have come from? :wink3:Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
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.
I thought it was the oldest son regardless whether adopted or natural? So Sigismund would become heir.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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)
A Kaiser, FactionHeir, is never young. Nor is he old. He dies precisely when he means to. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Time for a new thread - we've exceeded 20 pages.