Printable View
This poll is for King of the Romans PBM players only.
Basically, I want to see how many people have an interest in becoming Chancellor any time after the Cataclysm ends if the rules pass. Please ignore all IC stuff (like the fact you don't think you'd be able to do a good job of healing the Reich) and availability issues.
The main purpose of the poll is to see how user-friendly the PBM is becoming.
-edit- Ah, nuts, forgot to make the poll public.
Yes and no. Both of my 'reigns' (Mandorf's Chancellorship and the Cataclysm) have been entertaining for me and I've had a lot of fun. The micromanagment can't possibly get any greater than what I am currently doing, so that's not an issue. However, when I'm done with the Cataclysm, I will be looking forward to taking a far more relaxed role. I doubt I will be fully 'rested' enough to want to be Chancellor in the next 2-3 elections at a minimum. Since I still think the game will end around that time frame, that means I probably won't run for Chancellor again for the remainder of KOTR. Thus, I mark my vote as no, though it could be a yes if the game continues for long enough.
I marked yes. The micromanagement doesn't seem too bad, especially when it's just for 10 turns. I waste lots of time with the game and forum anyway, might as well do something constructive with it. :beam:
I can't imagine my character winning a vote, though. :clown:
Voted yes. I quite enjoyed my first term as chancellor many many turns ago and wouldn't mind another with a new character.
The level of micromanagement certainly increased, but on the other hand, I gave players a lot of OOC freedom during my term already in terms of having them determine their own movements etc, and in general I like micromanaging stuff :grin:
Wolfgang can't see himself becoming Chancellor...
I said yes, although a while back I would have said no, it seems a little easier to me now for some reason.
I put down no. I of course have the obvious reasons of "electability" and "availability" but GH asked us to base it on "rule complication".
With the way the game is getting, even if I had the free time and electable avatar, I wouldn't do it. It's way too cumbersome. We've moved towards giving individual players more freedom, which is nice, but we've moved away from what the game was. The game used to be about each person running the game how they want for 10 turns with input and direction from the rest of the game. Well now we've basically turned the Chancellor into the person who "implements directions from players based on their relationship to the power structure." Maybe it was always that way. But it seems to be getting worse now. And with the new rules, it will only get worse. I realize I helped make the problem worse by voting for all of the OOC CA's today. But I only voted for them because I knew I would never have to deal with them as Chancellor.
I'm not sure if the Chancellor is able to truly implement their vision for the game anymore. It's too politically risky. Plus they seem too bogged down in doing the other stuff. Now the flip side of this is that the game has empowered players more. That is a good thing and will keep the game fresh. Since the number of players keep going up, the competition for the few top positions has heated up. Giving us more control over our avatars will help us feel more included and less bored if we don't get one of the 6 current mid/high level positions.
But this squeezes the person playing the Chancellor. I am wondering if we should scrap the whole Chancellor idea and make the position more of an OOC GM. Not as intensive as what TC is doing, unless people want to do that much work, but something similiar.
This game started out being a "feudal simulator". It was meant to simulate feudal hierarchy to an extent. But for most of us, that is boring if we don't have one of the top positions. Few of us want to be sitting in our settlements for the whole game with little/no hope at being Duke/Prince/Kaiser/King. So, in order to keep people playing and having fun, we keep empowering people. But that only increases the workload for the person who actually runs the game.
So, I am definitely not arguing for de-empowering people. We do want people to actually play the game and have fun. But for the next game, I think we should re-think the title system and power structure in order to make it more nuanced, as well as re-think the position of the person who actually ends up playing the game.
So, those are just some of my thoughts on the matter. :book:
Voted no. Looks too labor intensive, and my availability is inconsistent.
:egypt:
I'm not convinced that the rules are too complex, but as I wrote a good chunk of them, I would say that, wouldn't I? One thing to bear in mind is that a PBM gets very time consuming to run in the late game, even if it is just a standard succession game. I suspect some of the freedom we give players makes it less time consuming for Chancellors. Delegating battles is one obvious example - I recall FLYdude saying that half of his Consulship in WotS was very easy - he'd just download and upload a save every night, passing it on from one player to the next. Plus some of the direction from players/edicts/rules actually makes the job easier - a lot of the decisions are already taken, so you don't have to worry too much about them, and the supervision of your peers can be very motivating. Conversely, I remember loading up a Thracian PBM end-game and deciding there was no way I would want to wade through the many battles and micromanagement needed to take Rome even though it was clearly doable in 10 turns.
There may be something in this, but I am not sure. The WotS game seemed to have Consuls who tended to run the game how they wanted, but in KotR, the Diet seems to have taken a more directing role. I wonder if WotS led players to realise that what these kind of games was about was constantly role-playing their avatars - who were nearly always not currently Consuls - rather than taking turns to run the game in the style of a standard PBM succession game. That these non-Chancellor avatars have exerted more of a grip over proceedings follows on from that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I wonder if we have created a genuinely "Parliamentary" political system as opposed to previous PBMs more "Presidential" systems? My impression is that "the vision" often comes from what the Diet collectively wants rather than being led by the Chancellor. I don't recall that many striking political manifestoes and some of the more dramatic stuff - Heinrich's Whackapope and then Max's crusade to repent - tends to be initiated by non-Chancellors. Perhaps the unification agenda was the main example of something initiated by a Chancellor and that was only possible because the Diet laid off calling an Emergency Session for OOC reasons. Done purely IC, I think the initiative would have been squished by the Diet by turn 3 - if not turn 1.Quote:
I'm not sure if the Chancellor is able to truly implement their vision for the game anymore. It's too politically risky. Plus they seem too bogged down in doing the other stuff.
If we have created a Parliamentary as opposed to Presidential system, I am not sure it is purely because of the formal balance of powers. The Chancellor still has frighteningly wide powers. It maybe just that 19 non-Chancellor players tend to come up with more interesting ideas for things to do than the one player who gets to be Chancellor at the time. And that may not be a bad thing. (It may even be historically appropriate for a medieval Chancellor - especially of the HRE.)
Another factor is that as the Reich expanded, we were forced to impose internal limits on expansion in an effort to keep the game challenging. That left Chancellors will the job of basically managing a static kingdom with no obvious scope for visions of conquest.
There's an internal logic to that, but the problem is who would do it? I think it would be even less attractive than being a Chancellor. A Chancellorship lasts just 10 turns and you do get to have some fun, reorganising the Reich and spearheading at least one campaign. I don't think anyone would have the time to be an OOC GM for a long period. And I would feel very queasy an alternating OOC GM. I feel rather like Groucho Marx saying any Club he would want to join, would not accept him and any Club that would accept him, he would not want to join.Quote:
I am wondering if we should scrap the whole Chancellor idea and make the position more of an OOC GM.
Okay, I've posted the poll, waited for responses, and now I'm going to say my opinion.
Basically, I'm biased, since I've been against over-complication and decentralization from the beginning. If you guys recall, I was against the creation of the first Household Armies, both for IC and OOC reasons. I've been pushing a KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach for a while now, and this has most of the time leaked into my characters (legal obfuscating, anyone?).
From the beginning, I remember some game honcho, whether it be econ21 or several other players from the start, saying that the main difference between KotR and WotS was that the executive would have a lot more power. I've invoked this statement several times in trying to keep the simplicity of the game going and I'm going to do so again. As of now, it seems like we've done a complete 180 since the start of the game. Maybe it says something for KotR to be this organic but it really seems like a hassle.
Ideally, Chancellor (and Kaiser) should be the most sought-after positions in the Reich because they have the ultimate power. Now though, Privateerkev, whose statement on why he wasn't running was exactly what I was looking for, says we just scrap the whole idea of a Chancellor and do an OOC GM-role. For me, anyway, this is a big no-no. We need to make Chancellor stronger, not kill the role entirely.
The one example I'm going to use is back in Heinrich's time when he basically sidelined Dietrich von Saxony's career for over a decade simply because Dietrich spoke out against the Kaiser in public. Keep in mind, this was done when we only had six or so actual avatars and I was pretty much cutting Franconia's offensive capability down to nothing. Now, this kind of thing could never happen in a million years. If you piss off the Kaiser or Chancellor, your Duke could simply name you in command of a Household Army. Or, if you are Duke, name yourself in command. Or, if one of the CAs passes, refuse to supply any troops to the war effort if you rule a Castle. All of this makes the Chancellor's life more difficult, both IC and OOC.
I'm afraid that, if these complications continue to increase, KotR, without question the greatest Total War campaign ever played, will probably end the same way that the splendid Western Roman Empire one did almost a year and a half back: only two or three people, one of them the game overseer, administrating the thing until we finally decide to put it to bed. And I don't want to see that happen.
A frightening discourse on the internal workings of this game gentlemen. :beam:
We could go on “infinitum” (sp?) here on the relative strength's, weaknesses and themes of this game. In the end we would have a fantastic debate on the views on the best modern political system.
The position of chancellor must stay in my book. The latitude the position has, is still immense and in my view simply something that has not been exercised by anyone to date. Which is a good thing.
This issue is so complex I can’t even vote on it…lol
I would like to be the chancellor but it is clearly a far more involved process than it was, which of course it should be as the game as expanded…BUT the level of legislation continues at a rapid pace and that is my main concern.
Like all good parliaments we are attempting IC and OOC to keep the laws as up to date as possible and it’s an entire process in itself.
If I was to be the Chancellor I would take a minimalist approach and not be too concerned with all the laws. If I did I don’t think I could do the job. I’ve been in this from the beginning and I would use my general knowledge on the laws as a first reference and refer to specific points only if required.
A telling factor would be that I would certainly enlist the help of some select others to act as OOC advisors…that in itself may be enough for some people realise how potentially difficult this job could be.
As someone who’s studied Pol Science and History at uni, this game has reached a level that many Lecturers and Doctors of these subjects could only dream of exposing their students to. If I had exposure to this type of role playing (which it is in reality) it would have been of huge benefit to my studies. If that is the level we have reached…and we have in my opinion then we are in danger of going a little overboard :-)
We need to cap it, or pull it back just a little. I mean you can’t dive into the Diet now without a bloody lawyer and a complete printed copy of the rules…unless you want PK to take you apart of course *taking a dig there PK*, but everyone knows what I mean.
I suspect that you are vastly overestimating my legal skills. I'm only the Deputy Lord of Charter Interpretation. And as FH has pointed out in a PM, I'm not even good at that. I probably am only fit to be Lieutenant Deputy Lord of Charter Interpretation. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
On a more serious note, dragging out massive legalistic fights in the Diet, or what I will call "lawfare" is a strategy many of us have used. Bringing up a possible weak point in your political opponent's legislation is a common strategy in real life. Now I and others have certainly gone too far by then engaging in a heated legal dispute in the OOC thread.
Sometimes we bring this stuff up because we have a real and honest question. Or we simply misread or misinterpreted the rules. The rules are written in a way where it is quite easy to read them multiple ways if you were not here when they were written.
Other times we do it IC just to !@#$ with an avatar our avatar doesn't like. Econ has done a good job at quashing this by asking that IC and OOC rule questions be vetted through him before being presented to the whole community. I suspect this has saved us all from massive long dragged out legal disputes.
Now this doesn't solve the core problem you brought up regarding our rules becoming more complex. For that we'd have to rethink our relationship to the rules. Some of us, myself included, use the rules as guidelines to let us know what our avatar can and can not do. I like knowing my limits so I'll bring up legal questions beforehand. I believe it's easier to find out the limits before I accidentally break them. Others think we should find the limits more organically through trial and error.
That way frightens the crap out of me quite honestly. It's just not how I am comfortable doing things. I'm trying to get better about it and let the game "flow" more but I've needed a little patience from the rest of the community as I get used to it.
So, to an extent, I think as long as we keep roleplaying a political body, we will have rules. But we can change the atmosphere in which those rules are created, debated, interpreted, and amended. And I'll try to do my part but I might need more patience from you before I get it figured out. :embarassed:
PK you were an anecdotal example only. Everyone has done it and it should be part of the game in my view.
Debating each other regarding the rules and the interpretation needs to happen.
I suppose my point is that we should really think long and hard before introducing any further “permanent” legislation. This only add to the current “body” of work.
Please note I distinguish this in the form of the two types of Diet legislation. CA’s (Charter Amendments/permanent) and Edicts (valid for the duration of the Chancellors term).
CA’s are now even divided up into OOC CA’s and IC CA’s.
Immediately you can see there is far more focus on the CA’s as there are in fact two types. Please don’t get me wrong. We need these and they are crucial…but I think we have more than enough OOC CA’s and IC CA’s to create the framework for all of us to work in. What we should be doing is playing inside this sand box and having fun with the game…therefore we should be proposing nearly exclusively Edicts at this point in time which means our focus is IN the game and not outside the game.
Likewise the IC CA’s should be curbed also. This is simply taking the same attitude presented here and putting it into the game. I’d personally think that most of as Nobles of the Reich have more than enough rules and regulations to govern our actions…what we want to do now is “get on with it” and BE nobles operating in the realm.
I remember that at one stage I asked for a cap on the amount of legislation, which worked very well. Why don’t we put a hold on OOC CA’s and allow only 4 or 5 IC CA’s per session?
Of course that hasn't stopped me from voting in Econ's little poll already :-)
I can certainly see where your coming from. I too have an urge to just work with what we have. But...Quote:
I remember that at one stage I asked for a cap on the amount of legislation, which worked very well. Why don’t we put a hold on OOC CA’s and allow only 4 or 5 IC CA’s per session?
1.) We are about to go into a Diet session where we will attempt to codify all of the changes that have taken place in the cataclysm. These will no doubt take the form of CA's.
2.) The nature of the game changes as the Reich gets bigger and more and newer players join. OOC rule changes reflect some of these changes and allow us to keep the game "fresh". That is the big reason for Econ's laundry list of OOC CA's that we all just voted on. We keep evolving to allow more empowerment to players because that is what the majority of the community seems to want to do.
3.) The point has been brought up before that it would be relatively easy for a small number of people to spam pointless CA's each Diet session in order to reach the cap.
So, maybe limiting them per House? Say each House gets 1 or 2 and the Duke decides? But then we are dis-empowering people. Allowing even the common Elector to propose a CA seems like an awesome thing. (I had a lot of fun with Jan's "Mercy CA".) I wouldn't want to take it away. I guess I don't know the answer.
Regarding point 3)
We have a cap already PK.
Each elector has the ability to propose 1 Edict or CA. Then there are house Edicts and CA's which are controlled by the various house’s.
Empowerment is good, but not at the cost of a decentralised dogs breakfast and certainly not to the point where the traditional concept of a feudal system is made redundant.
There needs to be a hierarchy and it needs to function or we are going to find ourselves in an unwieldy system and something that is far removed from the core concept of the game.
And before anyone jumps in and makes a comment about me being a Duke…prior to that I was an elector without an avatar for about three months.
Going up…AND down the feudal hierarchy should be part of the game.
Points 1 and 2)
This Diet session has the potential to clearly demonstrate just how complex this game has become. I predict it is an eye opener as 40 years of no Diet is overcompensated for in a BIG way :-)
We are clearly going to need CA's after the crisis...but again...less is more in my view. Some of the army limitations are an example of something that I believe we can deal with on the AI side. I certainly understand Econ's idea of each elector having some sort of army at his disposal over and above the House armies...this will allow everyone to get into the game far more.
I'm wary of decentralising to the extent that, everyone has an army, everyone has everything...it's a little too much socialism in a system that was not built that way. I managed to have very good time with nothing...zero, just a keyboard and a Diet session....no player levies, no semi half stack garrisons, no ability to rebel IC etc etc.
Play inside with what we have...I don't wont to see the achievement aspect be removed in anyway.
It's a little like watching TV destroy the ability of reading in children.
About the cap, your right we have one. But right now it allows every single player to propose a CA at the Diet. Taking that right away might not fly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
As for hierarchy, it seems to be changing. The cataclysm offered the perfect chance to uproot the dominant political structure. And people took advantage of it for a few reasons. One, it's fun. :2thumbsup: Two, the size of the game has gotten to the point where many of us will go through our avatar's whole life without having him reach higher office. Now that might be realistic, since not everyone in real life gets to be Kaiser, but it is seen by many as not fun. Three, many of us, including me, took in game conflict as far as we could and we were looking for ways to gain "satisfaction" for our avatars.
So, I do want there to be hierarchy. We're not playing "Commune 2 Total War". But, when the next game starts being discussed in detail, I will advocate for a more nuanced feudal ladder with more titles and especially more mid-level ranks. We have exactly two mid-level ranks right now. One (prince) is given to you by luck. And the other is King. Stig's idea of "Fursts" was a good one in my opinion and should be seriously looked at next game.
I guess my point is, I hope that a more detailed and nuanced feudal ladder will give people something to do so their not bored if they can't be Duke for the life of their avatar. That would take some of the impetus off of empowerment and it might help people feel more comfortable playing a game that simulates feudalism. This may decrease the amount of rule changes that happen. Or it may not...
I just realized I just wrote a whole post that did not really address your issue of there being too much legislation. I think I'm just brain-dumping. Hopefully my post can be useful as a thought-piece. :yes:
Sensible concerns, GH. Fortunately we have about twenty players right now, so if we start to lose a few we'll be able to absorb the blow well enough before the numbers drop low enough to affect gameplay.
Still, I support these rules changes in a large part because they're more faithful to how the HRE was. In fact, I seem to recall that the candidate who was elected Emperor was often the one who pledged to give up the most power. I think the Byzantines or somesuch would have been a better faction choice for a game with a stronger executive, not a faction that was notorious for having weak executives.
One of the problems, I think, is that the political structure of KOTR is too rigid. The Dukes hardly have to do anything to keep the Duchies powerful. I know that the power structure is prett well-defined in the feudal system, but that didn't stop major powers from being marginalized with time.
EDIT: Sheesh, I knew I waited too long to post this. Ah well.
I agree that three should be more established mid level positions.
But that is determined on the number of players. I think with the new influx we have the right number to create a nice mid level of nobility.
Problem is...it's based on the number of players in the game.
If we have a mid level at the beginning it would not have been used until recently.
My thought was not to have a mid level nobility created but a series of positions and or titles with a number of creative in game benefits.
Viceroy of the Diet
Chancellor of the Exchequer
The Imperial Marshall
Lord of the Admiralty
etc etc. These titles and positions are in addition to the current noble ranking system and augment the current rules. It's literally a snap on, it doesn't impact any other rules and is given and taken away based on who controls the positions.
There are some Reich wide one's controlled by the Prinz and King. A few handled by the Chancellor for his term in office and others controlled by the Dukes. It's in character with the game and creates some diversity.
And again I'll state, I didn't have any of the mechanisms or "toys" we are thinking up here for new players when I started...it can be fun without all this decentralising of power and those that do have the drive, ambition and urge can progress...there should be a power structure and it shouldn't be too flat but equally not too steep.
Also I'm certainly not suggesting we remove the ability for each person to propose an edict or CA. We need to keep that but bare in mind it could get out of control...again :-)
Was that prompted by anything recent Cecil :beam: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
I had to work bloody hard on you my friend. That was a full court press from my side.
To be fair, what you basically had was patience. Arnold didn't scramble to become Duke. He didn't fight 4 other electors roughly the same age for Leopold's affection. He became Duke because at the time there was no one else for Leopold to give it to. (I am assuming Zirn wasn't around yet) Now the fact that you stuck around for 3 months is commendable. But that took OOC patience, not IC political skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
In Franconia, things were a lot different. We'd have 5-6 active avatars at one time. Stig's Furst idea was good but too little too late to solve the player boredom problem. If your avatar is in a big House, his chances of being Duke are not good. If your avatar is older than the Duke, then your chances are just about zero unless the Duke dies or the player quits. If your avatar's Duke decides to name a baby as his heir, then your pretty much left with no hope in becoming Duke.
So, mid-level ranks and titles might help this. I really like your title ideas and I think they could work well. It's very much in line with how MTW had titles and I wish M2TW kept them. Giving people titles to strive for, as well as perks and responsibilities from those titles, should help stave off player boredom. That way there will still be a power structure, but more of a chance that an avatar can achieve rank in that structure.
I totally agree that the pyramid shouldn't be too steep or too flat. :yes:
I'd love to be chancellor, but have never done it, and the work load sounds like a lot, I'd run on a joint ticket in a second (pm me if you are interested), so i said yes.
Small point PK...while I was waiting for an avatar I was playing the game and having a blast as a non avatar elector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I didn't get bored and there was plenty for me to do for one simply reason. I could vote in the Diet. I didn't strive to be Duke, nor did I have any idea I was going to be a Duke.
Therefore I would have been perfectly happy in another house with an avatar and with far more possibilities that I had in the Austrian house.
Bottom line for me...yes there could be a nice mid nobility made in the form of
positions and titles but not everyone is going to be Duke and I wont be after I die...so it's all swings and round abouts...you go up and you come down…and you know what PK...it might be the case that if I stay in Austria then there wont be a avatar for me...Again...and I could go back to being a avatarless elector...but wait...we have recruitable general's so that's solved now.
We are beginning to bang heads on this so I'll simply state that there is currently more than enough framework to have fun with in my mind.
If we go too far with the concept of having to decentralise the game and the positions then it wont be even vague realistic and will simply be pandering to people's lack of imagination and creativity which is at the core of this game. (A bit harsh but it’s the way I feel).
I was the gregarious "Merchant of Venice" way back then...
...could anyone now consider playing this game without an avatar or a whole bunch of titles and a royal rank and soldiers to kill things with?
Being new to KOTR, I can't compare how things are going with how they've been done, but perhaps my perspective as someone coming into something already seemingly fully developed might be valuable (probably not :clown: ).
I don't really think things have gotten too complex for the chancelor. None of the rules Econ21 proposed seem to be too much work. The Chancelor has a lot on his plate, and less control than some may want, but that seems part of running a political entity as decentralized as the Holy Roman Empire. The fact that things have gotten more complex fits very well with almost every single government I've studied in college. Legislation tends to consist of adding more and more new laws, not making things simpler. Just try to read the U.S. tax code sometime.
I think greater decentralization makes sense as a result of the Cataclysm. If unification had succeeded, power might have concentrated in the hands of the Emperor and Chancelor, but instead everything fell apart. Elberhard has not clamped down on the actions of the Electors (not with success, at least). There's been no Chancelor for years. It makes sense for more decentralization to take place.
I remember reading some talk of finishing this game with a few chancelorships and starting another. If that's true, and other faction picked is likely to have a more centralized government, and we'll be able to play around with having far more power concentrated in the faction leader. For now I think we should go with the way things have developed through the Cataclysm.
I'd certainly run for Chancelor, although my character has too little prestige to be likely to win.
Just my two cents (American, and thus worth less every day :clown: ).
I guess I don't see it as pandering. In my opinion, you have an exceptional imagination. I love reading even your non-story IC posts because you make Arnold come alive. Without meaning to seem "sappy", I see you as having a gift. Not all of us have a well developed imagination or the confidence to use it. I would love it if everyone stretched their creative muscles and pushed themselves. But we are all at different stages of the process and we have different comfort levels and confidence in our abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
You seem to believe that a smaller "safety net" will encourage us to stretch our imagination muscles. Well, it's hard to argue with that. But I guess I want a larger "safety net" for those of us who don't or can't stretch those muscles. We seem to agree that there should be built in mechanisms for avatars to achieve things, but we may differ on the type and number.
Figuring out the exact type or number could probably wait so I'll hold off unless you want to talk about it. :yes:
Well thanks for blowing some sunshine up my arse :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
In all seriousness thanks for the compliment.
I agree we are on the same line of thought it just the level we are talking about.
I think most of the guy's here are capable of some great stuff...the analogy I'm think of is the one of mentioned before.
I just don't want to hand out too many toy's, bells and whistles when a good solid book is what would do the best deal of good. I'm worried it's going to be all about, what title you have, what position you hold and how much influence you have rather than the role playing and interaction...
...and the great equaliser in my view is
...your character will die and you will have to start again. One day your a Duke of Mythical Dread...the next you are a recruitable 16 year old general who has 2 chivalry and a bunch of traits that make you want to go and pick flowers. The fact that there is "churn" in the positions leaves "possibility" open to everyone.
It's back to those issues I had about "power gaming" when I was playing all those years ago. The struggle to attain the goals that is important...not being given them or having a system that hands everything out easily that will provide a great experience.
Here's some more :sunny: for you!Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
:laugh4:
Hey AG, I think that the Idea of several mid level titles, possibility some appointed for life, some appointed for a chancelor's term term (one by the chancellor, one by the kaiser perhaps?), some elected it would all add a lot of political intrigue.
Sure PK mentioned it before. MTW number one did it and it would be easy to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
I like the idea of mid-level positions. TinCow has privately drafted some ideas for an expanded feudal heirarchy for the next game. And FLYdude suggested an "Army Group commander" type rank a while back, as a solution to the problem of stopping a few players with senior avatars monopolising the battles. I think that might mesh well with our concept of Dukes, who now have two armies at their disposal. There are issues with implementing some mid-level administrative positions, though, precisely related to the questions raised in this thread to do with weakening the power of and increasing the burden on the Chancellor's role. Plus there is always the risk of the camels instead of horses problem if we give day to day control of the Reich to a committee.
Some kinds of decentralisation would be a big hassle - the financial decentralisation that we trialled under Lucjan, for example. But my impression is that Household Armies have worked pretty well. I don't think they are a hassle for Chancellors - rather just one less thing for him to worry about (because the Dukes are worrying about them instead). I also think the same could be said of build queues. Yes, it's a minor pain for the Chancellor to collate the orders at the start of his term, but then he doesn't need to think much about what to build - just cherry pick from the lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Well, we have 8 people voting "yes" so far, which is pretty healthy. (I agree it is a shame the poll is not public, as OOC I'd like to help interested players who have not been Chancellor get elected - with my mighty influence of two :embarassed:) Most conventional PBMs struggle to find many players in the late game.Quote:
Ideally, Chancellor (and Kaiser) should be the most sought-after positions in the Reich because they have the ultimate power.
I am not sure that is such a favorable example, because we lost a good player (Lucjan) over that affair. If a Chancellor sidelines someone for political or personal reasons, there should be political consequences and I'd rather see them played out IC than OOC as happened then. As Duchies have grown in power and we have more players, and better networked players, I think we are starting to simulate plausible IC politics rather well.Quote:
The one example I'm going to use is back in Heinrich's time when he basically sidelined Dietrich von Saxony's career for over a decade simply because Dietrich spoke out against the Kaiser in public.
That WRE PBM was the precursor of WotS. It is true that it ended up as a two hander between TinCow and I. But we had so much fun with the story writing etc, TC contacted me and asked me if I would like to do another with just him and I. I replied that we should try to include some more players and ironically from that narrow concept of another PBM, the very inclusive WotS/KotR model of PBMs was born. But the point is that the WRE game ended up as two player job because the late game in Total War is so demanding. It was a totally conventional succession game, IIRC - no complicated rules, no democracy, no farming out battles or any other kind of decentralisation. After we re-unified the Empire, an Orgah suggested that we continue playing. I considered saying yes, but TC gave a resounding "NO!" - it really was a lot of (not very rewarding) work running such a large Empire solo.Quote:
I'm afraid that, if these complications continue to increase, KotR, without question the greatest Total War campaign ever played, will probably end the same way that the splendid Western Roman Empire one did almost a year and a half back: only two or three people, one of them the game overseer, administrating the thing until we finally decide to put it to bed. And I don't want to see that happen.
One interesting question is which would be more work - doing a late game stint in the Scottish PBM or as Chancellor in KotR? I am not sure what the answer is, but it would be different kind of work. In the Scottish PBM, you'd have to fight a lot of battles and face a more daunting write-up (I still have not written mine from a mid-game stint). In KotR, your battles would be more political and managerial with more bite sized episodes of tactical gaming and story writing. The nice thing is that both kinds of games are going on, so players can choose. (The Scottish game is re-cycling the old playlist so new entrants might be able to join and directly pick up a reign.)
I agree about not continuing to increase complications in this game - that was partly my reason to try to clear the decks on the OOC CAs before the Diet. I wanted to try to keep some of the fun elements of the Cataclysm. But I don't want the next Diet to open up a can of worms in terms of rules debates. As AG argues, it would be more fun for us to focus on the IC aspects of the issues such as the Swabian civil war, Prague, the defence of the Reich and how to organise our own Reconquista etc.
I agree with the comments about revising the heirarchy structure, but it's too complex to change in the middle of KOTR, IMO. Like econ21 said, I have already made a draft of a new feudal heirarchy that I think will provide for a far better system. I really don't think this is the time and place to discuss it in detail, though, since it's intended for the next game, not this one. I have been working on it simply so that econ21 and I can have a complete draft of a new rule set to propose when it is needed. However, that is months away, and discussing it now will simply distract from KOTR.
As I said a long while back, I have already done a small draft for the next PBM as well. Should be interesting how many ideas overlap in the end.
Well, we've got a good occasion right now to change the rules if we need to.
I voted no, because I couldn't in any case. CA 14.8 (the one about a time limit for the Chancellor) would not work with me. Also, I wouldn't like the responsibility. One mistake and it's *makes throat slash gesture*
Having recently read through a lot of old material what strikes me most about KotR is that it's been easy. The political squabbling and infighting developed because the HRE was never seriously threatened. That old historical truism; if your people have no enemies they create them. Even having a GM actively breaking up the empire is less about struggling to survive and more about trying to satisfy him that it's broken up enough.
I think if hotseat battles vs the AI were playable you could form an 'opposition team' (Perhaps formed of players who don't yet have an avatar, or recently lost theirs) who built some of the AI nations up intelligently, but didn't actively play them in the same sense as a multiplayer campaign. By switching AI control on and off during the turns you might even hide which other countries were controlled. As it stands now even during the Cataclysm and TC's best efforts the AI has no high star/dread/chivalry generals to supply for him, no decent army stacks of it's own, and no initiative or intelligence behind it's strategic advance. Imagine if the players were suddenly faced with a Mongol Invasion run well. Half of Europe (Or the Middle East) might fall in short order. Or if England surrendered to France or Scotland and became a vassal to survive?
I have a skewed view of things because I've participated in so little actual play, but to me it seems like TC, and some others helping, are putting out a lot of effort just to try to get the AI to do anything decent. If the game were more of a challenge I suspect there would be less politics and infighting.
All of that being said, I don't know that an OT is technically feasible, it's just the only thing I can think of that could force the player's nation into not automatically being the big dog on the map. Right now we can absolutely count on every other country being stupid and ultimately failing and because of that we feel we have the luxury to struggle amongst ourselves.
:egypt:
I certainly think that all future PBMs should start with hotseat enabled, though with only one faction selected. That will let us play as we always have, but will enable far greater control over the AI if we ever decide it is needed.
I think that's a good Idea, even if it's only to force the AI to take settlements that we've 'abbandoned'Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I'm not sure whether that will work well or not. In M2TW, having hotseat enabled can lead to us being unable to fight any defensive battles and lose start of turn information.
I thought enabling hotseat and only selecting one faction to play made the game run as normal. The only diffence would be that the "control" console command would work.
I haven't tried it myself, but I would imagine that playing a hotseat with 1 player and then enabling another faction during the game could force it into no defensive battle mode. Might be worth trying out and testing extensively, as it can break a PBM completely or at least set it back many turns.
One thinking is that otherwise, why would any of the current running MP campaigns not do so.
I think the difference is that using "control" is not actually enabling another faction. It just switches the player to that faction for that turn only. Since it's not a permanent activation of a second faction, it doesn't have the knock-on effect that results from running two factions in the same game. I don't know that for sure, though and it's really academic at this point anyway. Some quick experimentation before the next game should tell us the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Really? :beam:
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'm not sure how it compares to being a Chancelor, but it's certainly hard work playing a regular pbm in the end game. In my first reign in the game, it took me all of 1-2 hours to do 20 turns, fighting every battle and taking down notes . My first turn in this last reign took longer than that. Not only did I have to look over 30 provinces or so, but I faced multiple full stack defensive siege battles (one where the clock ran out!). I wrote a simple, character based narrative for my first writeup, but I dread doing so with this one(which of the dozen generals I've used to I focus on?). I'll probably end up doing more of an overview writeup.
Things calmed down a bit, but hours of playing later, I'm still only half done with my reign. I think being Chancelor would have the distinct advantage of moving more slowly. Turns seems to take at best several days in KOTR, so I'd have more time to assimulate all the information. Dukes make a lot of the decisions, and I wouldn't have to worry as much about where to move armies and build queues. I wouldn't be fighting most of the battles, either.
Yes, that's my impression, Zim. Being a Chancellor in KotR may be more complex, in terms of managaing rules and politics, than a regular late game PBM. But it may be less demanding in terms of time. (Unless you go to town on the politics and story telling, which is tempting...).
Bottom line is that I would love to run.
But it wont be until the next election I think.
I'm scheduled to be back home by around the 18th of December.