Cataclysm Mechanics Draft

[FactionHeir]

Quite a few HVs, but only 1 battle marker. Rest were too small to get one (like BG + 1 unit against several hundred doesn't seem to count). I think you need some 12+ full regiments involved in a battle for it to pop up a marker.

Btw, what happened to Peter's title in your sig

[gibsonsg91921]

i change the title periodically lol. peter is obviously not Supreme Commander of the Army of Immortals while he rots in prison and the army of immortals is disbanded. i should say "Herzog der Wahrheit". Tancred is the "Lord of Wahrheit" and "Lieutenant der Wahrheit", being the commander of the garrison of Wahrheitburg, nee constantinople nee byzantium.

[TinCow]

I don't have a problem with relaxing movement restrictions when players fight the AI. We will be rigging things a little for the sluggish AI anyway, so helping out players in extremis or for the sake of a good story is fine.

But relaxing movement restrictions will be problematic for any player vs player contests, as it makes it hard for players to know the rules of the game. For example, in the current Hummel vs Hans contest for Swabia, they both can see where their avatars can move and work out how best to claim provinces, bring the enemy to battle etc. I can imagine Ignoramus might be a bit put out if I teleport Hans from Ragusa to Caen at the start of 1314. (I know you are saying he could not bring his army, but still...)

Good point. I think I'll simply revert it to a "normal movement, but ask if you want to do something special" kind of thing.

I was wondering about just letting the rebels get TWO income per province, like the (combined) loyalists - not just from their capitals. An economy does not double just because the Duke takes a slice. And making it in the short term self interest of the Count to rebel creates a nice tension to the proceedings. Do they stay loyal to get Ducal support and long term intangible benefits or do they rebel to get more stuff for their own armies now?

This is a problem I've been trying to consider. I want there to be benefits to being loyal AND benefits for being a rebel. I am very much open to suggestions on how to improve the economics system. I want it to be simple enough so that it's easy to understand and implement, hence the basic integers as measures of wealth. I was originally thinking of making castles have a small income with cities a larger income... something like 1 for castles and 3 for cities, but that would make recruitment far too easy to do under my current 'pricing' system. I suppose I could increase the cost for everything (doubled?) but I want to make sure that recruitment of new units is HARD. I generally want there to be only two possible ways of assembling large, high quality armies: multiple players pooling their resources (cooperation) or solo players sacking everything in sight for lots of wealth (rebels).

[FactionHeir]

I prefer TC's economics. It is more balanced and also encourages Dukes to appoint Counts among others.
Looking at Swabia for instance, Hümmel would have more economical output if he had the same number of settlements as Hans due to the +1 Capital bonus. Hans would maybe get +1 from Salza, but Salza might well be a rebel without having come out just yet.

Of course when you then compare that to Bavaria where there are a lot of Counts and all rather united more or less, the current method makes rebellion more difficult.

Having 2 different systems could be considered, but might be too much work.

[econ21]

As for succession, the suggestion was brought forward because none of the other Swabians seem loyal at all, so it would be unlikely that ICly, Hans would consider giving them the title over someone he knows he can trust to run the Duchy.

I know. My first instinct - like GH, Overknight and AussieGiant - was to rule it out on OOC grounds. But as you say, given the in character situation for Hans, it makes sense. In the whole of Swabia, he has two open rebels - Dietrich and Hummel - plus one no show - von Salza. What's he going to do? I think letting the Council decide might be a way out of the impasse.

I will think more about TC's economic system - we have a little time to fine tune it. One impression was that demolishing buildings seemed rather too lucrative. Once we get out of the cataclysm, the HRE may be flush with money and anyway, it's all the Chancellor's problem then as the Dukes/Counts no longer directly receive the economic and military benefits of buildings. I'm also concerned about destroying buildings where the AI is going to take the settlement - ie keeping them in the stone age. Right now we have some elite AI armies (such as the Egyptian one that killed Elberhard's elephants; or the French that killed Xdeathfire's chap) that actually out tech our balanced forces. If we had rushed their citadels and destroyed all buildings, we would be facing waves of garbage, which would be less fun.

[Privateerkev]

Ignoramus is no longer count of metz. He lost it by declaring his intentions.

Wolfgang is freehold. His father was Duke.

[Stig]

Hummel a Duke?
Not when he died, sides this things about sons of dead Dukes still being freehold is rubbish imo.

[gibsonsg91921]

ulrich had his dukeship removed by force, so i think that he should be no longer freehold or an official duke.

[Privateerkev]

Econ ruled that if your avatar's father was ever duke, then he is freehold.
and he told me specifically that there would be no exception made for Ulrich. So Jens was freehold as well. poor GH... :/

That makes Wolfgang, Peter, Fritz, and Matthias the current freeholds.

Hans, Elberhard, Ansehelm, Arnold, and Lothar would be freehold as well but their current titles make that pointless.

[gibsonsg91921]

but in ulrich's case, with his dukeship stricken from him, he would no longer be able to have freeholds.

[Privateerkev]

this is what I got from big E.

I was curious a few weeks ago and asked him.

[FactionHeir]

Hümmel is not freecount because at the time the the elder Hümmel died, none of his sons were Counts.
Wolfgang got his countship bestowed by Hans at the last diet, so he is just a bonded count.

[TinCow]

Thinking about the rebel mechanics and the Swabian Dukedom in particular has given me an idea: In the event of a PvP battle, the victor could actually gain the loser's title, if it is of a higher rank. If all of Swabia is in revolt against Hans, surely one of them would become Duke if Hans was defeated. This would also increase the temptation for people to rebel in every House, making the cataclysm a REAL test of loyalties. We could even allow it for Kaiser, Prinz, and King of Outremer.

I'm also concerned about destroying buildings where the AI is going to take the settlement - ie keeping them in the stone age. Right now we have some elite AI armies (such as the Egyptian one that killed Elberhard's elephants; or the French that killed Xdeathfire's chap) that actually out tech our balanced forces. If we had rushed their citadels and destroyed all buildings, we would be facing waves of garbage, which would be less fun.

There's no way people are actually going to be able to go on the offense against the AI. At best, they will be able to reconquer SOME of the ones they are going to lose in the beginning. Thus, the only settlements that will be available for plundering will be our own. If players knock down everything inside them and flee, they will be creating a wasteland of useless cities that will hamper HRE development after the cataclysm is over... which was my intention. Knock stuff down now and the HRE will pay for it big time afterwards. Also, I'll be sure to find ways to balance out the massive income people could get for totally razing every building in a city. With a decent enough army, an avatar could probably get away with knocking down the local Inn without causing an uprising, but if you burned down the entire city it would be a different story. The local populace wouldn't exactly be happy about that, would they?

[gibsonsg91921]

but he's in metz, right? so he seized it by force anyways. he took his settlement with him in rebellion

i dig these mechanics, btw

[FactionHeir]

Last I checked Hümmel was somewhere near Bruges and doesn't control any town but possibly Metz due to being a former Count.
Of course you then get to wonder how loyal those people are to him with his father having exterminated it when he retook it from the French and the sons having held the county on and off and generally having a bad reputation.

As for taking and retaking settlements, I think that might actually be a big problem if Acre stays Capital. Unless you sack/exterminate, there is no way a huge city such as Paris will remain within the empire even with a full stack garrison (especially due to the extra 40% PO penalty on occupying for several turns).

TC's suggestion for taking titles is an interesting one, but who besides Jan is in a position to become Emperor? (I mean it takes too long to get to Outremer)
It would also be worthwhile clarifying whether one can only take titles within ones house and Imperial titles or also from other houses, like Dassel defeating Arnold and becoming Duke of Austria. Actually, since he's killing Abate, he might become Pope

[TinCow]

Perhaps only within your House and only one rank at a time? i.e. A Count would have to defeat his Duke before he could challenge for Kaiser. Since we don't technically have a Prinz yet IC, we could just skip that one. King would be considered Duke level. Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to actually try and kill the Kaiser... though I suppose it's possible. That said, Elberhard may choose to return to the Reich. After all, the majority of his provinces are there and if they are lost he will be without an income. That's interesting actually... the Kaiser might be one of the more vulnerable people due to his absence from the Reich. He'll probably have to make alliances with someone in order to survive... unless he runs away from everything.

I will move the HRE Capital around whenever necessary to keep things balanced. Acre will not be the Capital forever.

[Privateerkev]

Though King would be picked at the next Diet session so you might not be King for long. The Kaiser might not like someone usurping his pick.

Duke is for life though.

[Stig]

Hümmel is not freecount because at the time the the elder Hümmel died, none of his sons were Counts.
Wolfgang got his countship bestowed by Hans at the last diet, so he is just a bonded count.

Heh, that makes Fritz a Bonded Count as well, as Ansehelm made him Count (back then as Steward afaik).

[StoneCold]

But his father, the duke is still alive then, right?

[Stig]

But his father, the duke is still alive then, right?

Don't remember, I think Ansehelm was Steward, but not sure.
But Ansehelm made him Count, Gunther didn't.

[econ21]

The whole freedhold vs bonded Count issue is a bit of a mess. For most of the game, when everyone was playing "nice" it did not matter. Now when we are cutting each other's throats, it starts to be important. It's one of those vague things in the Charter that have crept up and bit us on the rear. We should have made it clear when announcing Counts who was freehold and who was bonded and we should have kept a record in the playlist.

I did try to clarify this issue in a PM to Privateerkev, but it looks like I may not have been fully successful. I will review it shortly.

[Privateerkev]

(3) Ducal succession. This is a fairly pressing issue given that Hans is getting on a bit. Factionheir has indicated that he wishes to take Ruppel as his next avatar and make him his successor. I am happy for him to take Ruppel (that's why I adopted the chap) but am leery about allowing players to tie up the position of Duke throughout generations. It does not seem quite fair and also risks making things rather boring.

What I propose is that if a Duke nominates as their successor an avatar that is of age when the current Duke dies and is controlled by another player, then that avatar will be a Duke. Any other nomination, and the succession becomes disputed and is determined by CA11.1. This means that Factionheir could nominate Ruppel as his successor and could become the next Duke, but that it would require the agreement of the Council.

This also applies to the Franconian succession which I don't quite understand, but seems to involve making Peter Steward. If, when the current Duke of Franconia dies, there is no player controlled avatar who is of age and is the nominated successor, then the Council will decide the succession. They may approve a Stewardship arrangement or they may choose a new Duke.

Let me try again to explain the very interesting Franconian heir situation. For the purposes of this, I will first define my terms. When I say steward with a little (s) I mean that the title is the Duke's 2'nd in command. They speak for the Duke when the player of the Duke is away but the steward does not get the extra influence. When I say Steward with a big (S) I mean like how Max Mandorf was in the beginning of the game. A Steward gets the extra influence plus all of the powers of Duke except naming an heir.

Ansehelm has Peter as steward. Ansehelm named Siegfried's daughter as heir which would go to her husband when she married. During the time between Ansehelm's death, and the daughter being married, Peter would be Steward. During the last Diet, Ansehelm changed the heir to the underage von Kassel but kept the rest the same. In the space of time between Ansehelm's death, and von Kassel coming of age, Peter will be Steward.

I totally agree with invoking CA 11.1 if the heir is not an avatar being currently controlled by a different player.

As for Ducal succession, I feel we might need an OOC CA to address this. Not only Swabia, but from the looks of it Franconia, plans to have the same player as Duke over two Avatars. This is, as GH succinctly put it, "lame".

I'm all for avatars being ambitious title hungry bastards, but we shouldn't cross that line in our OOC playing style. Switching off who is Duke provides a fresh perspective and increases fun for more players. Why compete for the Duke's favor if he's just going to pass the Title on to himself as another avatar? (Which might explain the mutinous nature of Swabia and Franconia at the moment).

There should, at least, be a one player gap between reassuming the title of Duke.

I completely agree that players should not be allowed to "lock up" the Dukeship over the course of multiple avatars.

I also want to caution us against allowing what I call a "Ducal loop". That is if Player A and Player B make a deal OOC. Player A has Avatar A which is Duke. Player A names Player B's Avatar B as heir. When Avatar A dies, Player A takes Avatar C which Player B names heir. Like if the past Duke takes the new Duke's eldest son as his new avatar. This would close the Dukeship between two players. Now, due to Houses only having 4 or so players each, this might not even be practical to prevent. But I think it is something we should keep in mind.

I know. My first instinct - like GH, Overknight and AussieGiant - was to rule it out on OOC grounds. But as you say, given the in character situation for Hans, it makes sense. In the whole of Swabia, he has two open rebels - Dietrich and Hummel - plus one no show - von Salza. What's he going to do? I think letting the Council decide might be a way out of the impasse.

Hans might want to consider dangling the "heir" title over Wolfgang and Dietrich. While both avatars are quite radical, they might moderate their politics in hope of becoming Duke. Just a thought.

So, I apologize for a lengthy post that seems to be off-topic. But, I think it is on-topic because clarification of the power-relationships pre-cataclysm, cataclysm, and post-cataclysm might influence how people RP during the cataclysm. I suspect some people might suicide their avatars just to avoid the consequences of what might happen to them when this is all over.

[econ21]

Going back to the freehold vs bonded Count issue again, I did try to check out the histories of when people became Counts but it was too hard to track things down.

The relevant section of the Charter is:

4.6 Counts who are not the natural sons of a Duke (e.g. adoptees and sons in law) may be lose their titles at the whim of the Duke. They are referred to as bonded Counts and are expected to act according to the wishes of their Duke. Natural sons of a Duke may not lose their settlements - they are referred to as freehold Counts.

I think I will stand by what I PMd to Privateerkev. If your father was ever a Duke, then you are a son of a Duke and so will be a freehold if you are made Count. What was envisaged in the Charter was that your dad makes you a Count and so its your inheritance. It gets messy if your dad kicks the bucket before you become a Count. But in that case, I think it might be easiest to show a little respect to an illustrious family and say that if you do subsequently become a Count, you are freehold.

That makes Wolfgang, Peter, Fritz, and Matthias the current freeholds.

Hans, Elberhard, Ansehelm, Arnold, and Lothar would be freehold as well but their current titles make that pointless.

I will add a column in the playlist for "son of a Duke" and work from the above list.

[Stig]

You still need to take Hummel out, he can't be a freehold if his father was a rebel, simple as that.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Also with the freehold issue, it encourages players to take game-spawned generals and not recruited avatars, which IMHO is a good thing.

[Privateerkev]

Also with the freehold issue, it encourages players to take game-spawned generals and not recruited avatars, which IMHO is a good thing.

absolutly. I agree that it has been useful to have RBG's as an option but I like that there are bonus's for staying in the "family tree".

[econ21]

You still need to take Hummel out, he can't be a freehold if his father was a rebel, simple as that.

His father was a Duke, so he's freehold. There's nothing in 4.6 about rebellious fathers.

I am more worried about him being a rebel and still a Count. That was something I did not really consider in the Charter. I envisaged Counts not voting in line with their Dukes or something - not trying to usurp their Houses!

Let's see where it leads. We can regularise things with CAs etc when the Charter kicks back in, come 1340.

[FactionHeir]

Hans might want to consider dangling the "heir" title over Wolfgang and Dietrich. While both avatars are quite radical, they might moderate their politics in hope of becoming Duke.

Actually, what Wolfgang didn't know before he rebelled, was that Hans was considering to make him the next Duke if he stayed loyal as he had previously.
As for Dassel, its quite obvious that there is no way Hans will ever name him his heir even if he started doing whatever Hans wanted.
So at the moment its really down to Warluster or Ruppel. If Warluster leaves the PBM (or is inactive for extended amounts of time) or goes rebel, he obviously won't become heir. If he helps fight Hümmel, then that's a big plus.

OOC, its not like I don't want to give the title away, but my belief is that there must be significant reason ICly to give the title to someone rather than an OOC fairness rule. The game wouldn't be fun if one player (possibly the only other active member inside the house besides the Duke) would constantly attempt to undermine the Duke's authority and usurp the throne and yet the Duke player would be forced due to OOC considerations to name that player his heir rather than continuing to keep the title for his own next avatar.

[Privateerkev]

Those are good points FH. They illustrate why I like Econ's idea of invoking CA 11.1 when this kind of stuff comes up. It allows you to make that decision but it has to pass through 5 other players first so it is a little more fair.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Of course, Ignoramus could always win in his rebellion and the whole thing could be averted.