M2 HRE Test OOC Thread

[econ21]

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.