KotR cataclysmic event discussion thread

[econ21]

There's been some discussion in the King of the Romans OOC thread about having a cataclysmic event soon that shakes the game up a bit. I think it would be good to have a focussed discussion on this, with the aim of having an OOC vote on Friday to either say yes or no to the idea.

The basic idea, as I understand it, will be to manipulate the game so that we lose a lot of provinces. This could be by pushing taxes too high, cutting garrisons, messing about with AI factions (to the extent possible), maybe getting excommunicated, moving capitals etc. Essentially, it will involve the person in the Chancellor role doing lots of things that make absolutely no sense for a Chancellor to consciously do, but to do these for the OOC reason of making the game more challenging and reinvigorating it.

We will try to weave a plausible story that can explain the chaos - I don't want to go into details here; it will be more fun if it is revealed slowly. I don't really want this thread to go into the story side - just the principle of manipulating the game to make it more unfavourable.

TinCow has offered to take on the Chancellor role for about 10 turns to oversee the event. He is a veteran PBMer and I totally trust his judgement. He will not deliberately try to get any player killed, but he will create major chaos and some avatars probably will die. We will use the recruitable generals to make sure no player is excluded from the game for that reason. Players may have to use the better part of discretion to survive - or you can choose to go out in a blaze of glory.

The sequence I envisage is that we will have 10 turns under Kaiser Siegfried as Chancellor that will build up the story leading to the event. Then 10 turns under TinCow - presumably Chancellor Lothar? - to fully oversee it. So basically, there will be no Chancellor elections for the next 20 turns.

On Friday, I would like us to vote on the question of the following form:

econ21 and TinCow are authorised to engineer a cataclysmic event during the 20 turns after the coming Diet. This may involve temporarily abandoning some parts of the Charter - for example, Emergency Diets may not be able to immediately undo what they are engineering - and implementing things in game that the Chancellor in character has not authorised.

The above question can be amended based on the discussion in this thread, but it is essentially give TinCow and I carte blanche to engineer a cataclysm. Based on the principles I have sketched, you will have to trust us.

I propose we have a simple one player one vote ballot, with a 2/3 majority to pass. I realise that this is a major change from the design of this PBM so if a significant number of players object (ie a third of those who vote), we will not do it.

The reason why I want us to resolve this issue now is because it will take some time to write the stories and make the preparations. Waiting to the next Diet will be too last minute, but we don't want to commit too much to the planning unless we know it is authorised.

[Ferret]

I think this is a great idea as the game has become a bit easy for the Germans at the moment, but are you planning to make it 'major' and mae half of our settlements rebel or not so major and just destroy a lot of bulidings and disband a lot of troops?

[RoadKill]

I'm loving this idea, I would prefer the more choas the better. If I could make a suggestion. Maybe we could use the hotseat program to help the other computer factions to build powerful armies, and use those armies to assult the HRE, or something along the lines of that.

[Stig]

I don't agree to this:

econ21 and TinCow are authorised to engineer a cataclysmic event during the 20 turns after the coming Diet. This may involve temporarily abandoning some parts of the Charter - for example, Emergency Diets may not be able to immediately undo what they are engineering - and implementing things in game that the Chancellor in character has not authorised.

I think we together should agree on what we want to happen and Lothar as Chancellor lets that happen. This should ofcourse be within the thinking world of Lothar (less Outremer is one of them). And at some point Lothar gets impeached.
I am against giving one player all control over the game to turn it into something that is as bad as possible, we together should agree on this, not just one player (or 2 for what it's worth).

[TinCow]

My goal would not be to simply wreck everything, but to create a real storyline IC that ends by creating new and interesting challenges for future years. I would not intentionally get any avatar killed, but the world will certainly become far more hostile than it is now. People who insist on fighting every enemy head-on instead of making strategic withdrawals will be risking their own lives. That will be their choice to make, though. Furthermore, no House (or Outremer) will be prejudiced in the process. All will suffer equally.

The end state will be much weaker than it is now with our enemies much stronger. Many difficult decisions will have to be made in the Diet about how to rebuild and regain what was lost.

I am against giving one player all control over the game to turn it into something that is as bad as possible, we together should agree on this, not just one player (or 2 for what it's worth).

This thread is to make sure we're all in agreement beforehand. We're not going to do this unless people want it. As for requiring group consent before acting, that's fine but you'll have to find someone else to do it. I have ideas about how to implement this in-game as well as plotlines and stories to justify it IC. That said, it will be very, very complex to implement and doing it my way will take forever if I have to check with other people before acting. Furthermore, it will ruin the surprise. Part of the point is to inject some excitement into the game and the 'plot' of the event will be spoiled if I have to get approval for everything.

For example, if I decide I want Swabian city X to revolt, I will probably have to disband some of the garrison, raise the taxes, and move the capital to Outremer for a couple turns. For the purpose of the 'event' none of that would have occurred. IC, the only thing that would have happened would have been that Swabian city X revolted for the reason I give IC. You will simply have to ignore whatever OOC actions I am taking and concentrate on the storyline that I put over it. The results are the important part, not the in-game methods I use to achieve them.

If you are concerned about my ability to successfully implement this in-game, ask econ21 about what I did with Appolonia in WOTS. I assure you that I can get it done in a logical manner without simply wrecking the Empire. I would also provide several stories to advance the 'event' plotline so that there is background info on why and how these things are happening.

Maybe we could use the hotseat program to help the other computer factions to build powerful armies, and use those armies to assult the HRE, or something along the lines of that.

Can this be enabled on the savegame without any problems? If I could control everything the AI factions do for 10 turns, I could do wondrous things with the game.

[Ferret]

I am definately for the 'disaster' in that case, but I think it would be good if it only afected mainland Europe and not Outremer so that when the people over here hear about it we can sail some men back to help cope with the 'disaster'. Btw how would a civil war work becuase that could also be very interesting

[Tamur]

I don't think we have an IC rationale for a civil war quite right now, and I don't think that's what is planned. However, we did that at the end of WotS and it was tremendous fun. Basically two sides arose, one loyal to the Senate (sort of), the other loyal to the Consul that Lucjan was playing at the time. econ21 GM's battles between the two sides via PMs, images, and "real" board battle mechanics. In all my years of TW, that was without doubt the most memorable series of battles ever.

But again, not sure we should go that route here. There are plenty of external forces that can be brought in.

[Northnovas]

I think this could be the spark for some. We would basically start a new game but we are working out of the framework that we created the past 10 months in the game.
We would face new challenges but have experienced avatars that would add to the IC development and try to claim what is lost depending how it was loss.
The goal is not to loose an avatar but change the circumstances for an avatar and have new challenges in the game instead of waiting for in game events. The Black Death and the Timurids being the next wave added to the cataclysmic event sounds good to me. This could be interesting.

[Dutch_guy]

I'm all for a civil war! Now that was a lot of fun in the WotS (even being on the losing side of it, heh) and I imagine that with the different houses, it wouldn't even be that hard to make happen.

[Tamur]

I am perfectly comfortable giving econ21 and TinCow a free hand to do as they wish, and actually would much prefer *not* to know what they plan. It would be like reading the end pages of a book first and then going onward sure of the plot. That would without a doubt take most of the enjoyment out of it for me.

If there are those (like Stig) who utterly refuse to have any mystery about it, I do hope those discussions will into a separate thread that I'm not obliged to read. I really want to find out what will happen in the same way that Fritz would so that my IC reactions can be genuine.

And if Fritz dies in a battle with impossible odds, all the better. As long as I get to fight it