Cataclysm Mechanics Draft

[econ21]

Some thoughts on three issues related to the cataclysm:

(1) On the issue of rebellions, one point to bear in mind is that in 1340 we will be back to business as usual so that the Diet, through the Chancellor, will control most of the resources. I don't think it would be right to say that rebel settlements and armies suddenly fall under the Chancellor's control. But they presumably will be severely outgunned. Hence any rebellions that want to last should try to build up the support for a political settlement in 1340.

Additionally, from 1340 onwards, the Kaiser will control the allocation of settlements to Houses. If a House loses control of a settlement and the HRE takes it (whether by reconquest from the AI or by one player taking it from another player), then on paper it will become Imperial (it not automatically revert to its original House). This gives the Kaiser some power to frustrate [EDIT: or reward!] Houses or players who try to grab others' settlements. Although again, the Kaiser allocating a settlement on paper does not de facto suddenly make a rebellious province loyal or redistribute it to another House. If there is a conflict between the Kaiser's de jure allocation and the de facto facts on the ground, we will find a realistic/in character way of resolving that.

(2) On Swabia:

TinCow is taking over in 1320, but it looks like the Swabian rebellion has been announced at the end of 1312. Hence we have to confront the issue of how control of Swabian settlements is decided now.

The initial control as of end 1312 is:

Controlled by Hummel (controls SHA1):
Metz as [EDIT: de facto] Count

Controlled by Hans (controls Prinz's army):
Staufen as Capital
Bern as settlement with no Count
EDIT: Bruges as settlement with no Count
EDIT: Rheims as settlement with no Count

Controlled by von Salza (controls SHA2):
Paris - de facto
Dijon as Count

Controlled by Elberhard:
Rheims as Count
Bruges as Imperial
Caen as Imperial

As TinCow indicated, a character can seize control of a settlement by moving his avatar into it. The garrison may fight, disband or join the occupier based on some modified random determination. Paris is occupied by SHA2 and cannot be occupied by another avatar until Warluster comes back to the PBM.

I won't be implementing TinCow's economic model - although that will come into effect in 1320. I will recruit soldiers for players from the settlements they control, although there will be some desertion and resource constraints.

(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.