Post cataclysm mechanics

[Privateerkev]

Come on PK...5 or 6 characters...what is this?

a mafia family or a consitutional monarchy?

You would do a great job. You certainly could deal with all the law issues. You'd just have to keep up with the PM issue, which OK has said is quite large, and I think that is an understatement.

Give it a go. And elecotor could be chancellor...in fact it would be a great change of pace.

I'm just acknowledging the power structure of the game. The way I see things, the people that have "emergency session" power can bog the chancellor down with tons of paperwork and requests. And the chancellor could only ignore them at their peril. Look at Hummel...

I appreciate your vote of confidence. Though after today's performance in the OOC thread, my confidence at being able to "deal with all the law issues" has take quite a hit.

I lost my chance at being "lord of charter interpretation". That makes me unworthy...

Another thing is that I do not believe Alfgarda is "electable". Jan was not the most popular avatar. In fact he was absolutely polarizing. You either wished he was on your side because he was such a loyal and outspoken ally or you wished he would get hit by a bus because he was such an annoying opponent. Alfgarda will have that baggage.

Unless I take either Lothar's or Zirn's second oldest sons which I have given a little bit of thought to. I still have some time to mull that over. That still wouldn't solve my time problem. I'm in my third semester of my Masters and I'm scared that if I played as chancellor, I'd just have to retire like WL did. And I don't want to put the game through that.

[AussieGiant]

I hear you about the semester issue and the master degree. That is a time problem by definition.

emergency session characters clearly need some TLC. But it would be a great thing to at least be Chancellor once.

Alfgarda could be electable...there is always a chance. Your avatar certainly was as you describe, and you were consistent in his portrayal.

All I can say is that OK's feedback to me via PM clearly shows a need for considerable time allocation to do a good job.

However, you could pull an Igno...now that would be great!!!

[Privateerkev]

I hear you about the semester issue and the master degree. That is a time problem by definition.

Tell me about it. I don't have spare time. I can only "steal" time from things I should be doing.

emergency session characters clearly need some TLC. But it would be a great thing to at least be Chancellor once.

I would first have to get an avatar that didn't hate half of the emergency session characters. I imagine Lothar and Arnold would not be amused finding themselves on leaky boats in the Mediterranean.

An Alfgarda Chancellorship has the potential to be very very exciting and then it would probably end quite abruptly.

Alfgarda could be electable...there is always a chance. Your avatar certainly was as you describe, and you were consistent in his portrayal.

I didn't even know generic electors could be Chancellor. Might be one of those 250 year old laws we can ignore... ;)

As for Jan, he lived by the old adage, "The point is to have all the good people like you and all the evil people hate you."

All I can say is that OK's feedback to me via PM clearly shows a need for considerable time allocation to do a good job.

Yeah, from Jan's interactions with Matthias, I could tell OK was swamped with PM's. Jan tried to go easy on him "most" of the time. ^^

However, you could pull an Igno...now that would be great!!!

If I played Chancellor the way I play my SP games, I would be impeached after the first turn. I'm a big time turtler.

I would make the Reich swim in florins but all of the players would be bored out of their skulls.

[TinCow]

I would like to make a few general comments from my perspective as the Cataclysm GM.

This thing is an unbelievable amount of work. I am not joking. I have to actually schedule time during the week to get it done and even then it continues to take far more time than I anticipate. Now, that's not a huge problem because (1) I created the system myself and am entirely responsible for the amount of time it consumes and (2) it has a specific limited duration and I know exactly when it will be over. I also am very well aware that people like the freedom this system has given them a great deal. Some of the above proposed rule changes are designed to carry over that freedom into the rest of the game. I have some words of warning about this.

First, beware of increasing the time demands on the Chancellor. While it is voluntary, that position is a necessary part of the game and someone has to do it. It already involves a good amount of work in keeping the armies balanced, allocating battles, setting proper build queues, etc. Every little bit that we increase the complexity will make the position less enjoyable to hold, decrease the number of people who have the time and desire to do it, and slow down the game. My phase of the Cataclysm has been fun, without a doubt, but it has been SLOW. I think many people would be very annoyed if this slow pace continued for the rest of the game. We need to find ways to increase freedom that do not greatly hinder the Chancellor.

Second, beware of creating arbitrary limits in the name of balance or in the belief that they are balanced. I have developed several specific rules on recruitment and economics for the cataclysm. They are nice and fun and I think they have worked well enough. However, you need to all be aware that they are completely broken. There is nothing remotely balanced about them at all. I have maintained balance by making ridiculous alterations both to the players and the AI with my GM-bestowed powers of omnipotence. Without my active involvement in tweaking things on both sides every single turn, the Catalcysm system would not work even remotely well. If you start creating similar rules for KOTR, but do not have someone there who can make sure it balances out in the end, the game will develop some serious problems.

The most important thing that I have learned from KOTR and the Cataclysm is that freedom breathes life into the game, but rule complexity chokes it to death. I would strongly urge that we do NOT adopt any rules that will make the Chancellor's role more complex or that will slow down the game. If we want to do something that will increase complexity, we should simultaneously find a way to streamline another area so that the overall duties do not increase. The same applies to game speed. If we adopt rules that slow the game down, we should change other rules so that other aspects speed up.

If we cannot figure out a way to do this without completely re-writing the rules from the ground up, then we either need to keep playing KOTR the way it is, or declare it over and start a new game with a new rule system.

[AussieGiant]

You summed up my global policy about the game from day one very well TC.

And by the way TC, do you have a sister that acts like you, thinks like you but is not you??

Cause if you do...and I don't care if she's got a boyfriend I HAVE TO MEET HER!!

Fantastic post and hence my reluctance to change anything really except have those triple gold chevron full armour upgraded armies wondering around.

[Ramses II CP]

I think Tincow just said KISS:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Keep it simple, stupid.

Sounds like smart policy to me.

[econ21]

If we cannot figure out a way to do this without completely re-writing the rules from the ground up, then we either need to keep playing KOTR the way it is, or declare it over and start a new game with a new rule system.

I think the revisions I've suggested are relatively minor and simple - I don't think they amount to a re-write from the ground-up. I must admit Stuperman's idea about a full rules re-write filled me with dread.

One good thing about these PBMs is how we let the rules change over time. This game built on the KotR trial, which built on WotS. The Cataclysm is rather like the KotR trial in that it has given a radical change in game mechanics. I think it would be good to incorporate some of the good things about that - the freedom, the challenge - into the normal rules. But as you say, we need to keep an eye on the issues of speed and simplicity - those are the things that killed the full blown decentralisation of the KotR trial.

Also, I think we are in part now trialling ideas for a new game. IMO, we have not yet cracked a couple of key issues in PBM design - how to keep it challenging; and how to make sure every player has their fair share of battles. The Cataclysm mechanics did provide solutions to those problems, albeit at a great and unsustainable cost in terms of TC's time. I think limits on army size - plus spawning AI armies - may be a big part of the solution to the challenge. And I think having multiple modest armies and feudal levies may be the way to give all players some battles (as opposed to the Chancellor or Dukes doing everything thing with half a dozen uber armies).

I think it is worth testing those ideas - even if just for 5 turns - rather than starting a new game, because the cost of testing them in KotR would be low whereas we are not ready to let the game die just yet.

*****

We need to find ways to increase freedom that do not greatly hinder the Chancellor....I would strongly urge that we do NOT adopt any rules that will make the Chancellor's role more complex or that will slow down the game.

I think the only proposal in this thread that threatens a big increase in the Chancellor's workload and a slowdown is CA14.2. By allowing people the freedom to specify moves for their characters we increase the burden the Chancellor to implement those orders and potentially slow the game down.

However, on the issue of speed, I don't think a 24 hour window between posting a new turn save and making character moves will markedly slow the game down. I know I got criticised for whizzing through my turns too quickly as Henry and so as Elberhard, I promised a day or two interval between turns to give people time to catch up with what was going on. We almost always have battles each turn and if that 24 orders window is also the window to fight your battle, then there won't be a further delay.

On the issue of complexity, that is why I initially suggested that players could download the save and make the moves themselves. That saves the Chancellor having to print out or note PMs, then bring that info to the save. I guess the Chancellor can just tell players to go ahead, download the save and make the move.

If we adopt rules that slow the game down, we should change other rules so that other aspects speed up.

I think we have been shifting from a 48 hour window to fight battles to a 24 hour window, which is a good thing. I don't think waiting for players to fight battles causes big delays for KotR - we've gotten pretty good at sticking to deadlines and pressing on if some can't meet them.

The main thing that could slow the game down is a Chancellor who gets very busy and unable to keep the game going at a decent pace. This is what dragged WotS down at the end under Lucjan and caused problems for KotR with a couple of Chancellors. TC's phase of the Cataclysm has not felt slow to me because he posts a new turn within a day or two of everyone fighting their battles. I suggest:

OOC CA 14.8: Chancellors should aim to post annual reports and savegames within 48 hours of the deadline for fighting all battles (offensive or defensive). Chancellors who fail to do this three times may be subject to an OOC impeachment vote.

I think this CA just makes explicit the standards we have been working to. It's softly worded ("aim to"; "may be subject"), so we can be sensitive to Chancellor's reasonable OOC issues.

*****

Second, beware of creating arbitrary limits in the name of balance or in the belief that they are balanced. ... Without my active involvement in tweaking things on both sides every single turn, the Catalcysm system would not work even remotely well. If you start creating similar rules for KOTR, but do not have someone there who can make sure it balances out in the end, the game will develop some serious problems.

One reason why I would like limits on army sizes is that it will make it is easier to balance the CA14.1 tweaks to the AI. I will have a rough idea of what, say, Franconia can come up with - roughly a full stack of Household armes, with one or at most two full stacks provided by the Chancellor and Kaiser/Prinz, plus some feudal levies. I would then know that, say 4 Polish full stacks and 4 Russian full stacks created at a Diet should provide a decent challenge. If there are no limits on the number or size of the player armies, it is harder for me to balance - I would just be working one side of the equation.

But, as I said, I think this is mainly an aesthetic thing. I would rather create modest AI forces every 10 turns and tighten the constraints players work under than every other turn have to spawn monster all gold AI armies. The intensity of the latter is fine for the cataclysm when we are under invasion, but I suspect it would get old under normal play. It would be like the endless full stack battles that went on in WotS and got some players fed up with the Very Hard campaign difficulty setting ("Another heroic victory... throw the medal onto the pile...").

I recall some of the most fun and challenging WotS battles were when we had Roman half stacks bumbling into full stack Carthies, Macedonians, Egyptians and Seleucids. Mount Suribachi could testify to that. But these were not uber 9 chevron armies - they were just regular full stacks. So our Romans were not fighting supermen, but they were just being stretched and outnumbered.

*****

Going back to reducing complexity: I had a thought about how to implement the feudal levy so that it does not cause confusion. Every Diet, I could post screenshots of people's levy for information and I could reorder the stacks so the levy units were the first ones in their avatar's stack.

Then it should be fairly easy for players and the Chancellor to keep track of what are avatar's feudal levies - they would be the first four units in their stack (five for Dukes/Prinz).

[Stuperman]

I think you are right econ, a full re-write of the rules is probably a bit much.


I like the idea of spawning several large enemy stacks every diet session, but if we really want to spread the battles around, then perhaps we should also spawn small rebel stacks in each province (or increase the natural spawn rate) this would give many lesser generals; battles to fight, a chance to exp-up their feudal levies, a chance to gain some traits.

The idea of the feudal levies is sounding more and more appealing to me although I still am doubtful. I think starting with 4 peasants is a little weak, maybe town militia and peasant archers.

My other concerns are with keeping track of everyone's wealth, the actual process of upgrading everyone, and the work/reward ratio. How much is this going to bring to the game? especially if it adds hours and hours of work to the job of chancellor?

[TinCow]

I think the revisions I've suggested are relatively minor and simple - I don't think they amount to a re-write from the ground-up. I must admit Stuperman's idea about a full rules re-write filled me with dread.

It was not my intention to say that your CAs were re-writing the rules from the ground up. I was simply making a general observation about the game. Re-writing from the ground up is stuff like I sent you last week. By comparison, even the most radical of the above CAs are simply a minor to moderate change.

I think limits on army size - plus spawning AI armies - may be a big part of the solution to the challenge. And I think having multiple modest armies and feudal levies may be the way to give all players some battles (as opposed to the Chancellor or Dukes doing everything thing with half a dozen uber armies).

I think it is worth testing those ideas - even if just for 5 turns - rather than starting a new game, because the cost of testing them in KotR would be low whereas we are not ready to let the game die just yet.

I agree. My concern about the army size CA is not that it would make the game more complex or slow it down. If anything, it's the perfect example of how to make significant changes to the gameplay without increasing the burden on the players. My concern about army size is simply that it will be too hard. Thus, I fully support a 5 turn trial period to figure it out.

Also, I was not speaking about any of your legislation at all in my "arbitrary limits" paragraph. That was more a cautionary tale for everyone based on my economic, recruitment, and movement rules, which I should really rename "guidelines."

Going back to reducing complexity: I had a thought about how to implement the feudal levy so that it does not cause confusion. Every Diet, I could post screenshots of people's levy for information and I could reorder the stacks so the levy units were the first ones in their avatar's stack.

Then it should be fairly easy for players and the Chancellor to keep track of what are avatar's feudal levies - they would be the first four units in their stack (five for Dukes/Prinz).

The levies idea intrigues me, but I am worried about the complexity. That is much less of a problem if you truly can do it all yourself, but I know there are limits on your time as well. I don't want the solution to all of our time and complexity problems to become 'let econ21 deal with it.' That's just unfair. You're a player as well as a the TR mod and KOTR overseer. We need to make sure we don't overwhelm you while we are trying to spare ourselves.

I also question how much value this will bring to the game in comparison to the costs in time and complexity. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have not personally found the unit recruitment and allocation system in the Cataclysm to be particularly fun. It is useful because it makes people struggle for resources, but I think it is the struggle itself that provides the most entertainment, not necessarily the intricacies of army customization. Most of the large armies that have been built have migrated towards a normal balance anyway, proving that what people want is really what we also give them in under the normal KOTR rules. Thus, minor tweaking of units seems to me to be of low benefit in comparison to the time and energy it will eat up.

That said, I do see a major potential in your levy idea: ownership. I get the sense that people really, really like "owning" things in the cataclysm. They like being able to look at the map and say "That city and that army are mine. No one else can take them away from me against my will unless they pry them from my cold dead hands." That gives people a great deal of incentive to protect their assets and accumulate more. It is the basic building block of a true balance of power and a proper political system. While basic KOTR rules can "give" people Counties, I doubt many of us have really identified with them to a great extent.

I put a lot of effort into making Lothar care about Florence, but at the end of the day, the person behind Lothar (me) didn't really give two florins what happened to it. No matter how much I wrote about it IC, the place never really felt like 'mine.' In contrast, being able to directly and materially draw on the resources of all of Bavaria has made me rabidly passionate about it. I let some of Bavarian cities fall early without a fight because I could justify it IC and it needed to be done to achieve the post-cataclysm status I am working towards. In contrast, I just recently stuck Lothar in Milan in a situation where he might very much die. I'm not sure I can beat that stack, but I simply couldn't stand the thought of letting it go without a fight when I had an army to fight with. At the same time, I have been agonizing about what to do with Nuremburg. I don't have enough electors or armies to pacify the place and keep it that way. It's tearing me up every time I have to roll a die to see which building gets knocked down, because I know those are my personal resources that are going down the drain. If this were the normal game, I would just shrug and add the building back to the construction queue, because its loss would have no material impact on me as a player.

If we can somehow find a way to continue this sense of ownership, perhaps we can make people more invested in the game. Many of us are invested in our characters themselves because we spend a lot of time creating their backstories and having them climb the political ladder. However, few of us care about the actual individual armies or cities. We may say so IC, but did any of really care OOC when Rome was lost? I suspect not. I think there is a lot of room to explore ownership via armies and provinces. It may require new rules that are too radical for KOTR, but the levy idea in general is a small step in that direction and for that reason alone I am willing to give it a try. Again, I would urge a trial period, but it would be an interesting thing to test.

[FactionHeir]

I didn't care when Rome was lost. I did when its huge cathedral was knocked down though. Hans had it built after all
You make very good points regarding those factors, in terms of ownership and complexity of levy.

Regarding the levy, putting those units as first few in the stack doesn't mean it is easy to discern them at the end of battle. Any unit that was lost completely in the battle and is healed up afterwards will appear at the end of the stack after the battle. If you lose several units, then you cannot be sure which is which. You could of course say that you can keep track of it via in-battle screenshots, but these are also not always accurate as regrouping units can shift their positions. Thus, its incredibly difficult to mark them.

Still, they are a good idea, and I think they should be subject to your own time constraints and will rather than being forced upon you. So if you decide that feudal levies are taking too much of your time, we can just abandon the idea and go with the units left of the levy but no longer replace them.

[Zim]

That said, I do see a major potential in your levy idea: ownership. I get the sense that people really, really like "owning" things in the cataclysm. They like being able to look at the map and say "That city and that army are mine. No one else can take them away from me against my will unless they pry them from my cold dead hands." That gives people a great deal of incentive to protect their assets and accumulate more. It is the basic building block of a true balance of power and a proper political system. While basic KOTR rules can "give" people Counties, I doubt many of us have really identified with them to a great extent.

I can't speak for how it would have been precataclysm, since I just joined, but I can say that during it the system TCset up makes a big difference. When I was first put in charge of Antwerp, I thought it was great, but I didn't strongly identify with the city, and wrote a back story having my character coming from elsewhere.

Then when Tincow posted this past turn, and I saw my character's options and resources (including florins per turn) limited entirely in terms of my County it made a huge difference. I became determined to defend it, and to try to prepare to get deguerra's county(Bruges) back, to protect my and my allies resources.

In one day I became so attached to my county I hoped very strongly that Hummel would not order me to abandon it and join him in the south, and prepared arguments to try to change his mind if he did. This was all a result of a feeling of ownership that would be lacking if if my resources and armies came entirely from the Chancelor. Even now I'm planning on the best way to face the French army that will be bearing down on Antwerp after it takes Bruges, and worrying about what the many Danish stacks in Franconia are up to.

I think that feudal levies will contribute a feeling of ownership after the cataclysm.

I don't suppose those armoured and mounted sergeants my guy spawned with can be part of my levy? I've grown attached to them as well, as an aspect of my background story that showed up ingame. I'll start with points in the hole if neccessary.

[Zim]

P.S. If the levy system is tried and a points system used for it, I'll gladly make some charts and keep track of everyone's points, if it makes things easier for Econ21 or the Chancellor.

[TinCow]

For those who weren't around last year when we did the KOTR test game, here are links to the relevant threads. The KOTR test was actually originally designed to emphasize individual ownership of every aspect of the game. As you can see, it bogged down in complexity very, very quickly. One rule I learned from it: If you have to post an Excel spreadsheet every turn just to make the game make sense, it's too complex.

Imperial Orders Thread - Main example of how complexity causes problems.
Rules Thread and Discussion
OOC Discussion - Us talking about what was and was not working.
IC Discussion - Equivalent of the Diet

[Zim]

That OOC thread was particularly interesting to me as someone who didn't get in on the ground floor.

I can still help out if the points system is used, but I'd like to say I prefer the other idea, where Econ determines a good four units for each levy.

For those who weren't around last year when we did the KOTR test game, here are links to the relevant threads. The KOTR test was actually originally designed to emphasize individual ownership of every aspect of the game. As you can see, it bogged down in complexity very, very quickly. One rule I learned from it: If you have to post an Excel spreadsheet every turn just to make the game make sense, it's too complex.

Imperial Orders Thread - Main example of how complexity causes problems.
Rules Thread and Discussion
OOC Discussion - Us talking about what was and was not working.
IC Discussion - Equivalent of the Diet

[econ21]

If CA14.7 passes, at the next Diet, I will allocate feudal levies to players who are lords of a settlement. They will be commensurate with the lord's age and experience.

At subsequent Diets, there will be scope to upgrade levies. For players who want it, I will implement a points based system. For the others, we can agree something less complicated and formal.

Given that there was some expression of interest in the points based system, I've given it a bit more thought. By my maths, the points I proposed should give 61 year old Counts fully upgraded levies, so they will be able to die happy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Upgrade paths (costs)


Note: high lords may have TWO knight class units; the Kaiser THREE.

Explanatory notes

In order to be eligible for a feudal levy, you must be lord of a settlement.
Counts and Dukes are lords of the settlements they govern. The Prinz and Kaiser are always lords.

If you cease being a lord, your levy is disbanded at the next Diet. (This represents the loss of the social and economic basis of your levy).

Lords are entitled to four units in a feudal levy. High lords (Dukes, King of Outremer, Prinz) are entitled to five; the Kaiser to six.

When players first become lords, they start off with a feudal levy of four peasants. Every Diet, a lord is given 10 points they may “spend” those points to upgrade their units (high lords are given 13 points; the Kaiser 15). The cost of the upgrade is the difference in the cost of the two units. Armor or weapon upgrades cost one point per upgrade per unit.

Steps on upgrade paths may be skipped if points allow (so a Feudal knight could be upgraded straight to Gothic). But units may only be upgraded to a unit on the same path. (e.g. an archer cannot be upgraded to a knight.)

Units can be retrained at no extra cost: sacrifice will be rewarded.
But lost units are replaced by peasants - look after your men.

[FactionHeir]

A few questions on your new levy system:

Cavalry - One max
Knights - One max
Since according to our current system, mounted knights count as both knights AND cavalry, how is that to be read?
DGK - I thought there was a general murmur not to implement them, so that should be Twohanders?

Retraining still evens out experience or retrain at max?
Also, regarding my earlier point on the half-stack armies, will the restriction on mounted knights = cavalry+knight be lifted, so that they count as cavalry only and in turn the knight limit per army can be slightly reduced?

[Ramses II CP]

Regarding tracking the levies, don't the post battle troops stats stay in order without regard to annihilated units? So if you had 4 units in your levy and they were top left-most in your stack wouldn't they be the first four in the list?

I'm just guessing at that because I've never paid close attention, but it feels right. (Maybe I should go test it before I post? Duh!)



I could not get a destroyed unit to recover, but destroyed and unrecovered units do stay in order in the post game stats list.

[econ21]

Cavalry - One max
Knights - One max
Since according to our current system, mounted knights count as both knights AND cavalry, how is that to be read?

Cavalry here means non-knightly cavalry - quintessentially, mounted sergeants.

DGK - I thought there was a general murmur not to implement them, so that should be Twohanders?

I think I can spawn them using the console? But to be honest, it's just a flavour thing - from the stats, I see no point anyone upgrading DFK.

Retraining still evens out experience or retrain at max?

Retraining will dilute experience. With all the fuss about triple gold armies, I am starting to wonder if the effects of experience were as weak as I thought when I allowed retraining. Basically I will disband the unit and create a new one with the console.

Also, regarding my earlier point on the half-stack armies, will the restriction on mounted knights = cavalry+knight be lifted, so that they count as cavalry only and in turn the knight limit per army can be slightly reduced?

The present system is because knights historically nearly all had horses. The way to think about it is that our foot knights are just ones which have chosen to fight dismounted. So to keep the armies to historical proportions, it makes sense to cap the total number of knights - mounted plus foot. With a 14 unit stack (army plus feudal levy), you could have 6 knights including your general. I think that's enough - nearly half your army.

In the spoiler, there's a miniature wargames army list for a medieval German army - you can see knights would form a substantial chunk, but only a minority. (It's not stated, but in the rules they would have the option to dismount - it's sad M2TW took away the dismounting feature of MTW).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

83. LATER MEDIEVAL GERMAN: EARLY 14TH TO LATE 15TH

The armies of the Holy Roman Empire made extensive use of mercenaries in its countless wars with its neighbors. The German army had to be versatile, it fought so many different types of enemies. To this end, the Emperors employed Hungarians, Low Countrymen, Italians, various pikemen and, later on, handgunners.
Tactically, the Germans can play a very intricate game of enticing an enemy to attack and then counter-charging him with numbers of knights when the enemy is unsupported or disordered. Use the feudal foot, in mixed weapon units, to anchor a flank. The center and other flank can be kept open for flanking maneuvers, skirmishing and deadly charges by the German knights.
This is a good army for any level of player.

1-5 CiC/Generals, FPC Veteran, L/Sh, 3 @ 58/43
Any -Downgrade to Warriors(T) @ -1
4-8 Feudal Knights, FPC Veteran, L/Sh, 3 @ 18
4-12 German Knights, FPC Warriors(T), L/Sh, 3 @ 17
-4 Mounted Crossbowmen, HC Warriors(T), CB, 3 @ 10
-8 Hungarian Cavalry, SC Warriors, B/Sh, 2 @ 4
6-30 Feudal Foot, LAI Poor(T), 1/2 Hal/Pa, 1/2 LSp or CB/Pa, 4
@ 5
-4 Halberdiers, LAI Warriors(T), Hal, 4 @ 5
4-16 Crossbowmen, HI Warriors(T), CB/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
-8 Skirmishers, SI Warriors(T), CB, 2 @ 2
-2 Organ Guns, ARTY Warriors, 3 crew @ 13

After Mid-15th

-12 Pikemen, LAI Warriors(T), Pike, 4 @ 5
-4 -Upgrade to HI @ +1
4-12 Handgunners, HI Warriors(T), HG/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
-2 Bombard, ARTY Warriors, 4 crew @ 16

Note: Any knights may use Wedge. Feudal foot may be in mixed weapon units.

[AussieGiant]

Ahh,

Econ's post takes me back to my history classes at uni.

The migration from fuedal tactics to pike and shot tactics where a wonderful period of discussion in a few of our lectures.

[Cecil XIX]

Tincow's right on the money about ownership, though it's quite easy to get attached the way the rules were pre-cataclysm. I got attached to Prague by researching 'Mahren', and then deciding that I wanted Prague to excel at something. Knowing something that makes your city special really gives you a sense of commitment, even if it's just that your militia are the best armored in the Reich. I also think an increased sense of ownership would be more realistic, too. I believe people were most loyal to the guy directly above him, not the guy at the top.

I'm also very fond of this levy system, for those very reason.

[AussieGiant]

Hey Cecil,

Are you going to respond to Bane?

[econ21]

Thinking a bit more about the wording of the half-stack CA, I am wondering if it is too restrictive.

First off, requiring the Chancellor to get an edict to raise an army is a nice idea BUT the Chancellor is unknown at the time we propose Edicts so it won't really work.

Second, I am not sure we need to limit ourselves to 2 Imperial armies. That may be good for the challenge, but goes against my idea to try to give everyone a chance to fight battles. And it may be cruel post-cataclysm to take away a player's toys - the units they have acquired - just because they don't get one of the limited number of formal armies.

Third, we should allow for small detachments - stacks of 6 units or less - to fight battles against smaller enemy forces when our formal armies are far away.

Re-reading the Charter, I was surprised to read article 6.4 which already has some of the ideas about formalising armies and rotating commands that I was wanting to encourage:

6.4 For field armies of seven or more units (including the general), the Chancellor must appoint an “army commander”. The army commander must be a “knight”. Army commanders are appointed for the duration of the Imperial Diet session (10 turn intervals). The post is expected to be rotating. Army commanders can decide what to do with prisoners after battle. They can be dismissed by Chancellors, but must be informed of this.

We have not adhered to this provision very closely, but I think it would be characterful to have formalisation like "Lorenz Zirn, Commander, 2nd Imperial Army" etc.

So I propose simplifying the wording of the half stack rule to:

OOC CA14.5 (rev MkII): Armies should consist of no more than 9 units plus a general. They can only stack with or enter battle with other armies, feudal levies or garrisons. Garrisons should not exceed 5 units. Crusading armies are exempt from this rule. This rule will be trialled for 5 turns.

Note: the Reich's armies are those created by the Chancellor under article 6.4, plus the Household Armies, the Armies of Outremer, of the Kaiser and of the Prinz.

This wording limits our formal armies to half stacks and means we cannot break that limit by having them fight alongside extra units unless they are player controlled (other armies or levies) or they are garrions.

But the rule does not limit the number of Imperial armies a Chancellor can create, nor does it prevent him setting up smaller battles that don't involve formal armies. (Article 6.4 says any field army of 7 or more units must be an army - that's the wriggle room that has allowed non-knights to fight battles, by leading stacks of 6 or less).

If the rule is passed, after 5 turns, we will discuss it in the OOC thread and keep it, drop it or vote on it depending on the balance of opinion.

[FactionHeir]

Are you going to take Ruppel's toy army away?

[Privateerkev]

Are you going to take Ruppel's toy army away?

That army sure has one heck of a story behind it.

(Like a lot of the others.)

[Zim]

Ehrhart has an army? Does that mean he left Staufen for Bern?

[Privateerkev]

Ehrhart has an army? Does that mean he left Staufen for Bern?

I have no clue but I would be very surprised if he passed up the opportunity to get a full stack army and pot of wealth.

[Zim]

I have no clue but I would be very surprised if he passed up the opportunity to get a full stack army and pot of wealth.

Full stack? I recall a bit under a half stack of virtually useless men, some much more useful cav, and about 1-2 units of real infantry surviving the Battle of Bern.

Of course, the ton of cash could rectify any weaknesses in his army.

[Privateerkev]

I recall a bit under a half stack of virtually useless men

Useless?

Useless!!!??

Hey those men performed awesomely against a force that was quite superior in terms of quality.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Zim]

Apparently their fighting prowess wasn't enough for them to keep their leader from being killed. And bum rushing a tiny fragment of Dieter's army does not count as defeating a superior force. Hans' army was the one that performed beyond it's expectations, taking Hugo's and most of Dietrich's armies down with them.

[Privateerkev]

Apparently their fighting prowess wasn't enough for them to keep their leader from being killed. And bum rushing a tiny fragment of Dieter's army does not count as defeating a superior force. Hans' army was the one that performed beyond it's expectations, taking Hugo's and most of Dietrich's armies down with them.

Well, their leader gambled because he wanted his side to win and was willing to risk his life in order to ensure success.

On three separate occasions they took on superior regiments by mobbing them with numbers. "quantity has a quality all of it's own"

Plus the cavalry ended up doing something quite unexpected. o_O

Say what you want about Jan's boys, but given the circumstances they found themselves in, they performed as heroes.

so

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: