Re: M2, HRE Tests PBEM
Thanks for those ideas, Lucjan - you put a lot of work into them and I think they are a good basis for a game. I confess I found them quite a lot to digest - if this is what WoS players felt in the past reading my WoS FAQ, they have my apologies.
To be honest, some of the rules seem a little ungainly - e.g. you may recruit only 2 out of 5 turns and can only afford memory starts to faze out... Other rules - players pay for troops, the Empire for buildings out of a residual - seem very problematic from a gameplay point of view: investment in buildings is arguably the key thing early on and players need the right incentives to invest.
I have been wondering how to simplify things and have come up with the following: if we are going to go for a decentralised PBM, we should just go the whole hog - let everyone manage their own armies and their settlements on a yearly basis. This is conceptually simple, although it requires a significant amount of recordkeeping by the reigning player (who I am calling the Chancellor, not the Emperor).
The basic idea
It would go like this:
Every even numbered day is the "orders phase". Each Duke has 24 hours to give orders (a) for troop movements
(b) for construction and recruitment
Often they will have no changes to their prior orders.
Every odd numbered day is the "execution phase". The Chancellor (player) has 24 hours to implement those orders and then posts the savegame either:
(a) at the end of the turn, so the Dukes can download it and prepare their orders for the new turn
or (b) for a battle, in which case he announces a two day postponement for the orders phase.
[Given the different time zones and real life commitments, we might want to extend the two 24 hours limits to 48 hours each.]
How much can the Dukes spend? The principle is that they get to keep - spend or save - all their settlements income, minus corruption, upkeep and Imperial taxes. Let us call income net of corruption and minus upkeep "gross profit". Gross profit net of Imperial taxes is "net profit". So basically, a Count's lands and armies imply a certain gross profit, but the Count only gets to spend net profit.
Imperial taxes are spent by the Chancellor to pay for the Imperial army and agents. They can also be used to invest in the Imperial capital (+castle, more anon) and fleets. [We could let Dukes buy and control their own agents and fleets, but I think that's too fiddly - let's restrict them to one field army.]
At the beginning of the game, the Empire starts with effectively zero gross profit. Therefore, I suggest that Imperial taxes start as lumpsums exactly equal to each Duke's starting gross profit. ie each Duke has zero net profit.
[Note: Bologna is actually in deficit, so it effectively receives an Imperial subsidy at the start of the game, rather than pays an Imperial tax.]
This sounds bleak, but the Empire does start with a treasury of 6000. I suggest that with 6 settlements, each receives a gift of 1000. So each of the four Dukes can spend or bank the 1000; the Chancellor gets the remaining 2000 to invest in Imperial settlements and the Imperial army.
However, any further Ducal spending or saving much come from growth of gross profits in his settlements. This will happen naturally from (a) population growth; (b) raising taxes; (c) disbanding units; (d) investing in economic buildings. Imperial taxes are fixed initially and so won't immediately rise to take a share of that growth.
Some extras
These are some additions/modifications to Lucjan's proposals:
1. Let's make Staufen castle an Imperial settlement too, so the Imperial army can train good troops without begging too much. Consequently, the Empire budget includes the gross profits from these two settlements plus Imperial taxes.
2. Towns make money; castles make good troops. Let them trade, at a mutually agreed price (not necessarily the face value price, as this means the castle loses out - they have less money than the towns, but towns can get all the good troops they can afford.)
3. There are periodic sessions of Parliament (or whatever we want to call the Senate). These vote on wars (2/3 majority); the size, composition and deployment of the Imperial army, agents and fleets; building programs in Imperial cities; on the level of Imperial taxes etc. I think one session every 5 turns would be sensible.
4. Imperial taxes should be lump sum amounts - not percentages - but could be non-uniform. Settlements with bigger gross profits, could get bigger tax bills (and de facto do at the start of the game). The Chancellor must propose a budget (a set of Imperial taxes for each settlement) and Parliament must approve it; if it is rejected, taxes stay at their historic levels.
5. The reigning player with the savegame is called the Chancellor and elected every X turns. Lucjan suggests 15 turns, but given the additional accounts burden I am imposing, I think 10 might be best.
6. The main duty of the Chancellor is to execute orders on the map, as in WoS. As in WoS, this means it makes sense that he is a leading politican and usually someone who wants to lead his men on an active campaign.
7. However, he also has to look maintain the accounts (no roleplaying on the accounts please - they are ooc and must be strictly maintained, no fiddling). This will be a major pain. I just did it for the starting situation and it was not fun (e.g. generals must be moved out of settlements in order to see their upkeep). I suggest it be done through excel or something, with the results posted in a table. I am happy to help set this up.
8. The Emperor and the heir are largely figureheads. I think the Emperor should be like the WoS Senate speaker, keeping Parliament to order and adjudicating of rules. The heir can be the deputy (maybe the librarian?). The Emperor can be Chancellor. The reason for not making the reigning player the Emperor, is that we will have an avatar on the map who is called Emperor but often is not the reigning player. Ignoring that fact is a little ugly, IMO.
9. Let each Duke freely set their own taxes regardless of whether they are stationed in the settlement. With zero net profit at the start of the game, they are going to want to!
10. No limit on the size of settlement garrisons (I doubt 5 can fend off a serious AI army). The settlement budget constraint will limit this. I agree only one field army per Duke though. Also Dukes can temporarily combine armies with other Dukes and/or the Imperial army; the Chancellor will keep track of units and the players can agree who fights the battle (or, perhaps more likely, agree not to combine!).
11. No limit on retraining - it's not such a big deal in M2TW (3 retrained per settlement max; 9 experience = only +3 att/def). One ship can carry two land units (we may want to crusade by sea and 10 ships is a decent enough fleet).
12. Let's play on normal unit size: the unit sizes are 75 spears; 60 swords/missiles and 40 cav which are fine, IMO. The terrain (e.g. buildings) are scaled for that - it's hard enough fitting a normal sized army in a small castle - and bigger units put a strain on older computers.
13. Let's play with timer on, please. Time - "give me night or give me Blucher" - is an important part of war and I don't want to wait around for some quirky/buggy AI behaviour as I've heard happens.
Bottomline
The main downside of a fully decentralised system such as the above is just record-keeping of settlement net profits. That's the price of being Chancellor. But you only have to do it 10 times.
The main upside is that each Duke has a lot to do - they can decide their own building and recruitment priorities, subject to the fundamental "guns or butter" trade-off. If the Chancellor keeps them informed of their net profit, the Dukes decisions should be fairly straightforward - they download the savegame and see what they want to do with their net profit. At the beginning, we each think about spending our intial 1000 gold, then pray for economic grow.
The Imperial taxes should make a nice role-playing issue - the Emperor is going to want to raise them to pay for a fleet, a bigger army etc. The Dukes seemingly have little incentive to agree. But by being selfish, they risk the Empire collapsing or stagnating. A classic Prisoner's Dilemma.
I am not sure how the political incentives regarding conquest will play out, following Lucjan's rules about Imperial vs Duchal conquests. However, I am happy to try them and see.
PS: In terms of avatars - for this trial, let's make Henry and Dietrich NPCs (or Counts) as they are in Imperial settlements. I am happy if Lucjan fights their battles - in the full game, they will be player controlled Counts in need of their own settlements.
PPS: I'd like to I take Otto (Innsbruck castle) for this trial.
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Bookmarks