Will of the Senate Post-mortem

[econ21]

I thought it might be good to have a short thread to brain storm what people thought went well and not so well in the Will of the Senate. This may be particularly useful for starting any new PBMs in the same style.

Here are my initial impressions:


Worked very well

Delegating battles to generals - this was in some ways the most revolutionary aspect of the campaign and a potential logistic nightmare. But it worked very well. One or two cases, we had to sweat as people hit problems making the 2 day deadline, but they were very rare and the fear of an autoresolve added a little frisson of excitement. I think delegating battles kept people's interest in the PBM and also took some of the load of Consuls, who often merely had to load up a save, make a move and then it was off their hands for a couple of days. The battle reports players wrote were often really good - some great writers fought rather less than they should. Maybe we need to think of a more egalitarian way of sharing out battles? e.g. a mandatory period of "leave" following a period "on active duty".

Collective policy-making - I think voting for what the Republic should do added a lot to the campaign. The fact that the civil war arose because the Consul decided to break the collective rules was fitting, because those constraints had come to be seen as so important to everyone (except Servius). It did not seem forced to bring impeachment and even Civil War in that situation. Often a Consul got his way, but sometimes they were restrained by motions - Tincow's mid-term, when he was dragged back from his Gallic campaign is perhaps the best example but also led to one of the most fun episodes (Apollonia), at least for me. Initially the political divide was between consolidation/expansion; later west vs east. Neither division felt forced, but arose naturally from the preferences of the players and, latterly, the geographic location of their avatars. More could have been made of family bonds, I think. The Aemili came to take on a particular salience as an entity, but it was not that homogenous and the other three families never really rivalled them as identifiable factions. We probably should play more respect to the family tree, somehow. The logistics of voting seemed very smooth.

The Roman leadership traits and the historical armies etc - I loved this stuff -trying to get your military experience up to become a legate, getting a legion, playing with historical armies and with a realism mod. All great stuff. I think we should try to formalise this with future PBMs - players should be formally appointed to governorships and command of armies; and should not be moved around willy-nilly like mere pawns (I know several of us ended up getting attached to our Legios or FAs, but we should build this in more from the beginning).


Worked fairly well

Electing the Consul - this created some competitive tension in a mainly cooperative form of game and worked ok. But to some extent, it did not seem that crucial - perhaps because the competition was not that intense later on (when the problem seemed to be more finding any Consul, rather than choosing from rivals); perhaps because the political differences were quite muted (no one quite saw a Servius arising, which might have promoted fiercer politicking). I don't think electing the "King" is essential for a future PBM, but would not mind much either way.

Role-playing and story-writing - there were some memorable Senators (e.g. those in the HoF nominations); and there were some very good stories, especially in the Civil War thread. But I would be interested to hear ideas on how to accentuate these. I personally feel I only really found a voice when TinCow conspired to set Quintus up at Apollonia and when the Civil War erupted. Perhaps more collective (covert) efforts at creating situations and "plays" to entertain others would be a good thing.


Did not work well

The Upper House - personally, I don't think this worked very well. There were some stalwart Upper House members who persevered throughout the PBM and contributed very well - Tiberius and Swordsmaster stand out. I take some schaudenfreude in their avatars being the key to Servius's defeat, as he arguably forgot about the Upper House and made the mistake of sending Luca off with a flea in his ear on the Senate floor (you know what they say about payback). But these were the exceptions and more commonly people would sign up for the Upper House and then drift away as they had nothing to do. Personally, I would want to avoid an Upper House/Lower House distinction if possible - by default, everyone should have the game and access to the savegame so they can feel involved. I think giving governors the power to govern - set taxes and set a build queue (which the "King" must follow if he is to build anything) - would add an extra dimension to the game and I think would be rather simple (at least compared to what we have laboured through on the M2TW HRE trial).

The complexity of the mod - this was a big deterrent to joining the PBM, downloading and installing all those files. It was the main reason why people went for the Upper House. With M2TW, I would like to stay as close to vanilla as possible - although I confess, working with a corrected vice and virtues file is attractive.


Anyway, those are some initial thoughts. Any other views?

Also, any new ideas on how it could have been improved?

[flyd]

I generally agree with econ's assessment. I do have comments.

Generals, battles, and armies. This worked just great except for one thing. What happened was that the starting generals, mine among them, got by far the largest share of the battles. They were the only ones at the beginning, and later they were the best and most influential generals, with the biggest armies, and therefore, the most important assignments. They were also the only ones elected Consul until Servius. The assumption was that they'd die off, and that the younger guys would take over, but as it turned out, some of the old bastards outlived the PBM itself!

One thing we can easily do is give the starting generals of our next campaign to those players that were there for much of the TWOS game but who had relatively minor characters, never were consul, etc. I think econ had a good idea about formally assigning generals to commands. This could be used to balance things out by "promoting" experienced generals away from field commands. Say, once a general reaches a certain number of stars or battles fought, he can be promoted, and is assigned to a command of an army group or a theater. The way I envision that would work is that he would be given the responsibility of a group of armies (commanded by lesser generals, who would actually fight battles). I imagine he would make his orders through the "Consul". Might this burden the Consul too much? Promotions to even higher ranks would be possible. The idea is to give the old generals something interesting to do, and to give newer ones some opportunity for battle.

I think the Senate worked well as it was. One thing we need to figure out is the powers that the character of the King, or the Emperor or whoever, will have, if any. We did try, at one point, to institute some sort of a Tribune with veto power, but never did manage. I suppose the King should be able to withhold assent to motions passed by the "Senate", which would come with the appropriate uproar from the Senators, I expect. Could be interesting. I think we still need elections for the "Consul", as that was one of the most aspects early on when there was a lot of competition.

I think the Civil War Stories thread was an interesting idea, and something of the sort was definitely missing through most of the campaign. All the other threads were limited to reports, or stuff you wanted to officially say to the Senate. An "off-topic" but in-character thread could be of use for role-playing from the start.

Mods do tend to be very attractive propositions, but for every mod we pick, we reduce the number of players who are willing to participate, so it's a trade off. I think we can still look at mods, but we must keep this in mind.

[econ21]

Good stuff, Flydude!

While you were writing, I just posted a companion piece proposing ideas for the WotSII in a M2TW setting:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=106

Two issues from your post:

(a) on sharing out the battles - would 10 turns of leave to 10 turns of active duty be enough? However, my idea of permanent Field Marshall positions reinforces the dominance of the old guard. Perhaps a general should only be a Field Marshall for a maximum 40 turns, then get retired with an extra settlement as pension?

I am also thinking an avatar should be knighted by having his general delegate command of a battle to him, rather than just having his unit do great deeds?

(b) An in-character stories thread from the start is a good idea! (I was nervous about how the civil war stories thread would turn out, but it did great! )

I am not persuaded on the veto idea - I think the reigning player (Consul, whatever) has a lot of power, especially if they appoint generals and governors.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Very good post. I have not much to add to this summary. The two most important issues were time and complexity. Whatever the setup in the future these must be carefully (and better) balanced. The time of a consulship became much too long at the end, and the complexity (which greatly added to the fun) scared of a lot of people and made the game barely manageable at times.

Nevertheless, I consider tWotS a major RPG-succes ! My congratulations to all who were involved !

[Braden]

Firstly, I have to say that the WotS was perhaps one of THE best gaming experiences I’ve ever had. It was enriching, lively, engrossing and above all fun!

I’m going to keep my comments and observations completely in the context of the WotS game and will also borrow Econs format.

Worked Very Well:

Upper and Lower house Senate – as mentioned above, one of the main problems with the WotS was the large number of mods that had to be installed to take a physical part in the game. To me, and others, the lifeline was the Upper House and at no point did I feel left out of the game. I believe you will always get players who will not be able to or wish to take an active part in any PBeM over the entirety of its lifespan and we’ve been lucky to have a core of perhaps 6 players who have carried the game through from start to finish in various capacities.

Generals Fighting Battles – This kept those players who’d managed to install the Mod busy and “hooked” to the core of the game. Whilst I have to agree that it might have been better for more generals to have more battles (i.e. a greater spread of battles), that isn’t always possible and wholly reliant on how the game pans out. I am sure there are several things we can do to improve the involvement of generals in battles but that might also be dependant on how aggressive the AI is and how aggressive the players who make the policies are.

It’s no point trying to get more battles if there just aren’t any. Generally, we tried to be “A-historical” and this led to a general policy for large periods of the game where we acted in a passive manner. This was to be as historical as possible but, mostly, to give the poor AI a chance.

Perhaps more and stronger Rebel forces could be added (more modding), and generals more compelled to fight them. It’s not an ideal scenario but perhaps “insurgencies” is a better way of letting the AI surprise us?

What Worked but wasn’t “That great”:

Historical Armies – I thought this was a great idea and fantastic guidelines. I was concerned though that later in the game the rules around this were bent to serious conditions as native forces were amalgamated into the formations and we ended up with armies far larger than I was happy with.

Role-Play and Stories – I have to agree that we needed to promote “WotS Based” stories more, and there should have been an open thread throughout to be honest. Who knows, perhaps the Decius/Manius story would have evolved much earlier for example. There was a lack of PM based RP and negotiation, I don’t know if its possible to enhance this or expand on it. As my LRP group say “Role-Play is something that happens, not something you Plan”.

What was Not Good:

Mods – the number of mods involved was completely complex and required lots of work to get it right. However, in our case, it was required. I can’t envisage us running an as successful game without all those mods. Perhaps better facilities to download all of the mods as one extractable file?

Suggestions for the Future:

One of the main features I thought was missing was an “a-historical” depiction of Governors. To tag this into Flydudes suggestion – Once serving Generals have reached a certain age and status (could be command stars but perhaps would be best to use Influence) they would be allocated a Goverorship and much like the regional governments being trialled in the M2 PBeM, they should have control over armies and recruitment – a certain independence from Rome as it were.

I could be wrong but from my knowledge of the workings of early to mid Rome, the Governors of regions were gifted a command by Rome and then left to their own devices. They fought wars and raised extra troops as they saw fit and Rome didn’t mind as long as:

1) they won
2) they kept the taxes flowing
3) trade wasn’t interrupted
4) the plebs didn’t get to unhappy about it

So, perhaps a system where the Consul has less direct power. The Senate would remain essentially the same as we have arranged but with the ability for generals to actively steer their careers towards Governorship where they’d have control over a full Roman army as well as a Region and its recruitment pool and the ability to start a fight with whom ever they want to get at I can see more pressure from those Generals against the Senate to promote their own agendas and to obtain the greatest glory and ultimately their own “Duchy”?

Devolving direct power away from the Consul will, at first, mean that the Consulship would be less attractive BUT as the game progresses (and workloads increase) this method will make it more attractive to players. Obviously, a Consul will have their own Governorship to run and will issue general orders to the Governors (much like the M2 PBeM) but as he’s not physically having to control build queues, set taxes, recruit forces, control populations or borders etc the work load will be significantly less whilst he’d still retain the honour involved.

Of course, some form of Rules system will have to be set in place to prevent Governors becoming too bold but we’d have to sit down and talk the mechanics through in more detail.

We have a historical base for a better campaign than the M2 version. After all, the HRE was chosen due to its similarities to a Roman basis and I think there’s a future for a Rome campaign again using the best from both systems.

The other issue we really need to address to make such a system work is Player-vs-Player battles.

Whilst the Ref’d system Econ used for the Civil War was ok I don’t think that anyone was completely happy with it. It put far too much work on Econ for one thing, the results were not representative of MP battles and if we are to use a system, as detailed above, where it is possible for Governors to initiate a Civil War as they please…then we need a solution to this issue where players have a chance to take part in full MP battles or have the option of a more expressive medium for the battles.

[Dutch_guy]

First of all I'd like to say this PBM was a very, very interesting and fun experience. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if something on this scale was never done before, and I'm absolutely sure it never happened here.

I too, have some comments on how the game worked out - although a lot has already been said by the previous posters...

And yes, I'm going to shamelessly borrow Econ's format too.

Worked very well:

Communication: obviously a very important part of a successful PBM is if the game proceeds in a fluent manner, no long period stalls and of low participation. I think we managed to keep this one running, and one thing which - amongst others - made this possible was the all around great interaction and communication between the characters. Econ PMing all of us was a good way to remind us what was going on, and in character PMing was also done quite frequently.

Lower House: from the mid- to the late game almost everything was exclusively done by these members. This quite small, select ?, didn't bog the game down but at the same time didn't make anyone feel un welcome - even though the senate floor wasn't always the best place to be after a fierce exchange of words...

The Senate: I think the senate feature, for lack of a better word, made the game to what is was. The concept was and is great, and something like it should definitely be included in the next major PBM. The entire procedure of going through the election of consuls, putting forward motions and voting for just about everything kept the game interesting and open for player (and Upper house) participation.


Worked fairly well

Upper House: It has been said already, but the Upper house wasn't all that great as the initial idea. Sure, in the beginning of the game Upper house did play an important part of the game. But eventually, when conquest started in earnest, the Upper house members had almost no say in the matter. They had no political leverage, as their characters often feel way behind when it came to influence. Which is a shame, because we lost a lot of people there. Not every Upper house member eventually made the transition to Lower house.

Army assignment: Since the consul basically decided which troops were made and who'd get them and when, the individual general was basically in the power of the consul. In theory not bad, but this could have been handled better by, as already mentioned, letting the generals (lower house members) decide, at least to a certain degree of historical accuracy, which unit to build, when and in what amount. This would require the consul to manage even more than he might have already, but it would add to the flavour.

Did not work well

The Mod: the modification itself was a god find, and I enjoyed playing it. But in my opinion it was quite hard to install, and I imagine a lot of people were scared of actually having to install such a quagmire of various different components. This could have gone a lot worse, in the end a lot of people managed to install it perfectly, but it did deter a lot of potential players. And was also the reason a lot of Upper house members didn't make the transition to Lower house.

Usage of individual cities In my opinion it would have been a nice addition to the PBM if we had assigned a city to each and every avatar to manage (not merely the upper house members). This would have created some sort of government system which the Romans also used, I would have liked to have seen something along the lines of a proconsul. A proconsul would have near total power of said district or city, managing troop production and building cues in his district or city(ies). This would relieve the consol of some tedious micro management, and at the same time force an avatar to participate in the game and check up on his city or district at times.

For future games:

We should definitely keep some sort of a senate, or some sort of other system in which each member of the game can have a say in the matter and put forward his ideas.

The Reign of a consul should be scaled down after each King or Consul. Say the first Reign 'd take 15 years, then the next should take 12.5, the next 10 and so forth. People lose interest in a game which seems to be taking ages and ages, when things start to turn tedious later in the game we should relieve the consul of his command earlier as to force participation and not having to burden the same person with idle micro management for too long a time. I realise this may get messy, so I do propose some sort of a minimum time a consul or King should reign. Needless to say, a consul or King should be able to refuse to step down and create an interesting civil war-esque situation.

In my opinion we should try more of a proconsular style of city management. I think this is sort of being tried / done in the trial M2TW PBM (HRE) ? An avatar should have the power to decide just about everything which happens in his district, to the limits of certain motions and Papal decrees - or something like that. More so, I think a King should decide how much funds are allocated to each city. This would encourage reasoning on the senate floor, and could create some spicy situations between certain factions on one side, and the King and his loyalists on the other.

Family should be more important than it was in tWotS. We shouldn't force players to work together with his or her family members, but at least a bit more interaction between them would be great.

Well, that's all for the moment.

[Tricky Lady]

Well, I haven't contributed to this PBM a lot, so I'll keep my post short.

I completely agree with the fact that the Upper House alienates the players a bit from the PBM. I found it difficult to roleplay my character, but that's probably also due to the fact that I didn't have any experience in any RP'ing whatsoever, plus the fact that my knowledge of Roman history and politics is very very limited, so sometimes I found myself a bit intimidated by the superb knowledge shown by other members. So I drifted away from this PBM slowly, even though I couldn't resist coming back to read the magnificent posts, and just enjoying the read.
Some silly computer problems (internet browser being unable to load posts with many images) made it almost impossible to read the battle reports or the first consul reports, so I eventually lost touch completely. And I never really got into the PBM again, which was a pity.

And now that I've come back to the Org after a couple of weeks, you have posted a post-mortem report, heh heh.

So this PBM was really great to be a (very very small) part of, and I do hope that you'll start another one. Hopefully one for RTW again, as I still haven't got the new game yet.