As the cataclysm approaches its end, I think it would be a good idea to take stock and think about the OOC implications of a transition back to regular play.
What I would like to suggest is that as much as possible, everything should be determined in character. The fate of Swabia, Prague, Outremer, the speed of reconquest, re-incorporation of settlements, Charter Amendments etc should all be decided by debate and voting in the Diet. There’s been a risk in this game of the OOC discussions being livelier than the Diet ones. Now there is so much at stake, it’s a chance to give the Diet a shot in the arm. So this post will not touch on those issues at all.
However, there are some OOC things I think we can learn from the cataclysm to improve the regular game and these are issues that are best discussed OOC, and perhaps before all the IC politicking starts in earnest, to keep the two things separate. Indeed, it is important for rebellious players to know what the OOC groundrules will be after the cataclysm when deciding whether their avatars will continue to rebel. If the Chancellor can muster the whole resources of the Reich and move all armies, then any rebellion will arguably be a fool's game.
I am wording these proposals as OOC Charter Amendments, as that may be how we come to decide them. Explanation and justifications are in spoilers.
OOC CA 14.1:econ21 is authorised to use the console to periodically strengthen AI armies.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
When we started giving the AI money, the AI had virtually no decent armies and the money improved the challenge a lot. Some factions, like Egypt and Poland, started putting together nasty armies. But in the cataclysm, giving neighbouring armies as well as cash vastly improved the challenge. War with Byzantium would have been a petit dejeuner without the extra troops we spawned that made them - temporarily - the strongest faction. Ditto the “threats” from most other powers - only Poland was really giving us a fight in Europe before the cataclysm.
The kind of intervention I am thinking of is similar to what I did at the start of the cataclysm - spawning about 4 full stack armies per enemy faction each Diet and then letting the AI get on with it for 10 turns or so. I would not keep topping them up or teleporting them on a turn-by-turn basis, as it would be too time consuming and potentially “gamey”.
OOC CA 14.2:During each turn, the Chancellor will allow players a 48 hour interval to move their characters and fight battles. Exception - players engaged in PvP wars must have their moves umpired via econ21.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
We already fight our own battles - making our moves on the strategic map seems the next logical step. I think our system of providing lists of battles per turn could be extended to allow players to make movements. The cataclysm gave people a taste of greater freedom with their avatars and it would be good to continue this. This mechanic would also allow for rebellions to continue beyond the cataclysm.
We would need to clarify what armies people were allowed to move - although often I think that is self-evident (House armies, Imperial armies etc). Players on reserve duty or those without important moves could let the Chancellor move their avatar as usual.
OOC CA14.3:Players may “rebel” against Imperial authority and fight PvP battles. econ21 and TinCow will umpire what forces and resources they can command.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This option is to allow for things such as the Swabian civil war to continue. We have had mini-rebellions before - an earlier Hummel, Heinrich playing whack-a-Pope - but it has always been a bit odd having the Chancellor make decisions about what forces the rebels command and moving them. With this proposal, TC and I would decide what forces rebelling players can have and umpire their moves - and their opponents - as has been done during the catalcysm.
As to the resources of rebels, my inclination would be to look at the in-game economics and try to adhere to that. ie to compare the revenue of settlements controlled by rebels with the upkeep of their army, in order to work out what, if any, surplus they would have to recruit troops.
This option lives the way open for a move towards a civil war at some stage in the future if people want to push the game in that direction.
OOC CA14.4:No AI buildings may be destroyed.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sometimes we have “raided” AI settlements, not intending to keep them, but destroying infrastructure. Potentially, this could cripple the AI. We could use the “add_money" command to simulate the benefits from such raiding, but still leave the buildings so we don’t hamstring the AI.
OOC CA14.5:a) All armies should consist of no more than 9 units (excluding the general), with proportions as in the Household Armies CA (2 cav, 3 missile, 4 infantry). Restrictions on historical army composition also apply. Avatars may combine armies.
b) There are 12 standing armies: Kaiser, Prinz, 8xDuke, 2xOutremer. The Chancellor may raise two more Imperial armies, but only if authorised by a Diet edict (which should state the purpose and objectives of these armies).
c) Crusading armies are exempt from this rule.
d) City garrisons cannot exceed the number of free militia possible; castle garrisons cannot exceed 5 units.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The aim of this rule is to increase the challenge without having to pump out endless uber AI armies. Even with the set backs from the cataclysm, I suspect the HRE will still be the dominant faction and we will be able to field full stacks that can thrash plausible AI forces. Having us work with smaller armies will simulate the effect of the cataclysm - and the oncoming plague - and make it easier to have a challenging game without spawning excessive numbers of AI armies. It will also make cooperation between players more important.
The restrictions on garrison sizes is a corollary to the limits on army size - we cannot simply stockpile huge forces in settlements. Unruly settlements will have to be garrisoned by characters and perhaps their armies too.
OOC CA14.6:The lord of a settlement (Count, Duke, King or Kaiser) can veto any units in their settlement being trained for a particular Elector or purpose. They must inform the Chancellor of this veto in advance.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This rule is to give players - particularly the Dukes who control castles - some control over the forces raised there. Who is the lord of a settlement would be determined similar to the start of the cataclysm: normally, Counts are lords of their settlements; Dukes/King lords of other settlements in their House/Outremer without Counts; the Kaiser is lord of Imperial settlements.
OOC CA14.7:Each Count or higher will have a feudal levy. These will be allocated by econ21 at each Diet and will consist of four or more units commensurate with the status and service of the player’s avatar. (Typically, a Count would have 1 mounted sergeant, 1 peasant archer or peasant crossbow, 1 sergeant spearmen and EITHER one DFK OR one feudal knight.)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
With 12 standing armies, most players will have one. However, the levy provides some forces for those left out - they can combine with garrisons or standing armies to provide larger forces. The levies will also allow players with armies to field somewhat large forces than mere half stacks. More details at the end of this post.
Some thoughts on implentation of the feudal levy:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I was inspired by the cataclysm special rule for Stuperman to upgrade one unit per turn. So, the feudal levy for a new Count could be:
Initially (for new recruitable generals or 16 year old family members coming of age): 4 peasants (cost: 1 pt)
Each turn, the player has 1 pt to upgrade the peasant. It may be spent or accumulated. Costs for each unit are total costs - upgrades costs are the difference between total costs.
Up to TWO units may be upgraded along the ranged unit path:
They may be retrained proportional to their cost (e.g. replacing half a spear sergeants costs 2pts). Retraining will typically dilute experience appropriately.
Weapons upgrades and armour upgrades may be purchased at one pt per increment.
I will keep track of players’ points.
For players with established avatars, I will typically identify some existing units at the next Diet to be defined as part of their levy. Thus a Duke - or even a veteran Count - would not have 4 peasants, but some more advanced units.
If a player acquires a particularly fun mercenary unit, this could be substituted for one of their retinue at my discretion.
Dukes and the Prinz could have to a retinue of 5, with an extra one of them being allowed to follow a knightly path.
The Kaiser could have a retinue of 6, with an extra of them being allowed to follow a knightly path.
TinCow has suggested that we try out CA14.2 and CA14.5 for about 5 turns to see if they are workable. I would be happy to propose them on a trial basis.
I think all of these look good. These reflect the changes in the game that the cataclysm has spawned. They would all get a "yes" vote from me in their current form.
They all look good to me, but perhaps peasants as the starting levy is a bit too low? I'd say maybe two peasatn crossbowmen and two town militia or sergeant spearmen. Not completely worthless but pretty close.
Thinking about it, it might be best if we discuss these and any related proposals this week, with perhaps a poll on Friday. That might take some of the pressure of the next Diet and also give people advance warning about what the rules will be after the cataclysm. I would like to keep game mechanics changes as far removed as possible from IC politicking.
Originally Posted by Zim
They all look good to me, but perhaps peasants as the starting levy is a bit too low? I'd say maybe two peasant crossbowmen and two town militia or sergeant spearmen. Not completely worthless but pretty close.
I'm the kind of player who likes starting off in Dungeons and Dragons at level 1, where that first +1 longsword is so appreciated. So, my inclination is to pace out the rewards so to speak. That's also why I have made some of the upgrades to the better troops more costly than under Stuperman's special rule.
Most players will have an experienced avatar and so get better troops. For example, your recruitable will have 4 points by the time of the next Diet, so that all your men could be town militia or peasant archers.
BTW, I forgot to mention that one plus of the feudal levy rule would be to increase the importance of being a Count. Without being a Count or better, players would not have a levy.
I'm the kind of player who likes starting off in Dungeons and Dragons at level 1, where that first +1 longsword is so appreciated. So, my inclination is to pace out the rewards so to speak. That's also why I have made some of the upgrades to the better troops more costly than under Stuperman's special rule.
I do agree with starting at base peasant level.
Originally Posted by econ21
Most players will have an experienced avatar and so get better troops. For example, your recruitable will have 4 points by the time of the next Diet, so that all your men could be town militia or peasant archers.
BTW, I forgot to mention that one plus of the feudal levy rule would be to increase the importance of being a Count. Without being a Count or better, players would not have a levy.
Not quite. If Zim isn't made Count, then he'll have 0 by the time the diet comes.
I'm the kind of player who likes starting off in Dungeons and Dragons at level 1, where that first +1 longsword is so appreciated. So, my inclination is to pace out the rewards so to speak. That's also why I have made some of the upgrades to the better troops more costly than under Stuperman's special rule.
I'm the kind of player who joined a friend's game after all their levels were in the mid teens, so perhaps that's where we differ.
Maybe some sort of compromise with the levies to increase their usefulness? Can they not be included in the "only a half stack" rule? Then being a count and having a levy would bring a general's possible army up to 14, a significant advantage if stack unit limits are imposed.
I have one or two additional CA proposals, but they are based on plot events that have not happened yet. Thus, I will post them after the cataclysm is over, to keep from spoiling the events.
I agree with the majority of them, but there are several points that I disagree with and would cause me to vote against a CA:
14.2: I wouldn't go as far as every player going to download the save, make a move and upload it again. It would not only spam the uploader, but also be very time consuming and lead to problems with who ahs the save when, with everyone being able to reupload it. I would suggest that it be changed to every player being able to see the save and suggest via PM to the chancellor OOCly where they want to be moved by the end of turn (and this must be within their normal movement range, rather than cataclysm expanded movement range) and the chancellor is obliged to implement it to the best of his ability even if he disagrees with it ICly or OOCly, as this is the player's priviledge.
14.5: I believe we still have the 2 household armies rule per Duchy, so it would be 8x Duke. Also, I'd suggest a relaxing of the historical composition with us entering the late era and using smaller stacks. The AI afterall won't oblige to our rules, so if a player is only allowed a half stack and the AI happens to attack with a full stack and the player cannot retreat, it is suicide to be forced to fight the battle with 2 units of cavalry (including the BG as per rules). I'd say up to 4 cavalry including BG would be fairer, and the other regiments may be chosen at will, i.e. no limit on missile and infantry regiments, which historically were vastly abundant. I'd agree with artillery still limited to 1 piece though.
14.7: The levy sounds interesting, but I'm not sure whether it would still be fun this late in the game. Also, it is vastly expensive in my opinion, especially if you lose certain units. It would also be difficult to keep track of which unit was part of a levy after a battle if that player had his levy and his usual half stack. Retraining to proportional experience I am not a huge fan of, given the exorbitant costs of the units ->Retrain for almost full price and get the unit reduced to 1 bronze from 3 gold? No thanks, I'd rather the chancellor retrain it normally for me.
None of this is meant to be offensive in any way but to stimulate discussion of course.
Post cataclysm mechanics
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Zim
Bookmarks