Cataclysm Mechanics Draft

**Ignoramus** · 10-06-2007, 04:20

Would Lothar care in swearing allegience to Wolfgang?

And why is Matthias Steffen near Timbuktu?

**Privateerkev** · 10-06-2007, 04:24

Econ put Matthias there to get him out of the way. He is in "prison" but since you can't put an avatar in another faction's settlement, econ would have to leave him outside. But that would put Matthias in danger since the Reich is at war with the Byzantines. So, he is in prison.

But if he is in Morocco, I ask that he bring Jan back some gold as a souvenir. ^_^

**OverKnight** · 10-06-2007, 04:30

I'm gathering Matthias is in Timbuktu to see who's using fow_off.

It's all part of my "Heart of Darkness" meets "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" storyline that will soon be unveiled.

I don't want to spoil anything, but there will be Elephants with Frickin' Lasers on their tusks. It's going to be sweet.

**Privateerkev** · 10-06-2007, 04:31

Be sure to bring the Kaiser some "Arnolds".

The King would like some too if you can spare some.

**RoadKill** · 10-06-2007, 05:10

So just to make sure I understand this is basically what I do. I pm tincow about what I want to do, without asking any permission at all, so I can go rampaging throughout the Reich and do what ever I want? Also, After I pm you the things I want to do, and then tincow sends me the options I have?

**TinCow** · 10-06-2007, 14:23

Originally Posted by RoadKill

So just to make sure I understand this is basically what I do. I pm tincow about what I want to do, without asking any permission at all, so I can go rampaging throughout the Reich and do what ever I want? Also, After I pm you the things I want to do, and then tincow sends me the options I have?

No, you've got that backwards. It won't be practical to send me what you want to do until I make the mega-post for the turn. That post will tell you what the results are from the previous turn, tell you the resources (wealth, etc.) at your disposal, and give you a few basic options that I think are consistent with your situation. After that, you send me a PM with what you want to do. The options I list are simply suggestions to help people think of the various things they can do. They are also useful for people who do not have a whole lot of time on their hands to get involved in this. You will be able to easily get through the entire crisis by doing nothing more than PMing me "C" "B" "X" etc., if that is what you want.

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Btw, if we take someone prisoner, can we force them to work on a galley which happens to have an accident?

.

Yes, I would consider that an 'execution'. I don't really expect any player to kill another player, but given the routes some people are taking, it is possible that people could commit crimes that are so horrid that keeping them alive wouldn't make sense IC. So, I will allow this, but do not really expect it to occur.

Also, I will consider making exceptions for movement restrictions if people request them. You'll have to give me a good reason why, but I will seriously consider it if it makes sense. I am also considering making an exception for avatar-only and cavalry-only armies. I am thinking that if the path is clear of enemies (AI or HRE) and you take only your avatar, you can move anywhere you want, including overseas. If you take only cavalry, I will probably allow for faster movement than even the game would otherwise permit. I see no reason a cavalry force from Ragusa could not ride to Caen in 1 year.

Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus

I've got a question: I didn't read the earlier cataclysm thread entirely, so the main plot would still be a surprise for me. However, it seems this cataclysm is only going to last 10 turns (from 1320 to 1340). So, won't that make it slightly... problematic? Suppose Jan wants to go and conquer Bavaria (for example, I'm not saying he should!). Well, because of the game's mechanisms, getting from Outremer to Rome will take the majority of those 10 turns, no?
What I'm asking is, if the situation requires it, could the cataclysm last longer? I realise it would ask more time investment from TC and econ, but it would be ridiculous to cut a good rebellion short, no?

I would be willing to consider extending the cataclysm for longer under two conditions. (1) It is again authorized by a non-weighted 2/3 vote in 1340. It shouldn't continue going if a large number of people don't want it to. (2) I (or someone else) wants to keep running it. This is probably going to be very time-consuming for me to organize, and I suspect I may simply be exhausted when it is over.

**gibsonsg91921** · 10-06-2007, 14:31

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**econ21** · 10-06-2007, 17:28

Originally Posted by TinCow

Also, I will consider making exceptions for movement restrictions if people request them. You'll have to give me a good reason why, but I will seriously consider it if it makes sense. I am also considering making an exception for avatar-only and cavalry-only armies. I am thinking that if the path is clear of enemies (AI or HRE) and you take only your avatar, you can move anywhere you want, including overseas. If you take only cavalry, I will probably allow for faster movement than even the game would otherwise permit. I see no reason a cavalry force from Ragusa could not ride to Caen in 1 year.

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...)

Provinces that belong to a Count who remains loyal to their Duke will provide 1 income to BOTH the Count and the Duke. Counts that rebel from their Dukes will receive an income of 2 from the province they declare as their 'Capital' for the rest of the Cataclysm, provided that all other requirements for the income are met.

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?