Post cataclysm mechanics

**Privateerkev** · 11-19-2007, 18:15

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.

**Stuperman** · 11-19-2007, 18:37

I'll post when I get home and have more time, but I'm not sure I like all of these.

**Zim** · 11-19-2007, 18:43

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.

**econ21** · 11-19-2007, 19:20

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.

**FactionHeir** · 11-19-2007, 19:25

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

**Zim** · 11-19-2007, 19:29

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Not quite. If Zim isn't made Count, then he'll have 0 by the time the diet comes.

Already count of Antwerp.

The real question is, will the Diet let me stay that way? Given how chaotic thigns are and a need for leaders, I have some hopes the answer will be "yes".

**Ramses II CP** · 11-19-2007, 20:20

Personally I dislike the idea of a hard limit on army size in combination with a hard limit on composition. If you try to face the Poles with half the number of men they have and only two companies of cavalry you are going to have to exploit the AI or lose repeatedly. I don't necessarily object to losing, but I'm going to be prone to AI abuse if I'm constantly 2x outnumbered.

**Stuperman** · 11-19-2007, 20:34

14.1 - I think it's a good Idea

14.2 - It'll get complex, and there will be problems, it seems to be hard enough to get people to submit orders, let alone DL the save, and make thier own move.

14.3 - good

14.4 - good.

14.5 - Bad, very bad. I understand that fullstack v fullstack we own the AI, but 9 units leaves 2 dismounted knights/elites, 3 spears, 2 missile, and 2 Cav. or something similar. This army won't beat anything, the intent of 'historical-ness' was to have balanced armies, but with such few men armies become inferior in all areas, i.e. you'll never fight a battle with infantry, missile, or cav superiority. I don't think that limiting the size of armies is a bad thing, but there is a fine line between flexible and impotent.

Another thought; anyone want to go up against the timturmids with a half stack?

14.6 - yes

14.7 - I really liked it, and think that it would be a good Idea, but I also think that the logistics of such a rules would be a nightmare.

**Zim** · 11-19-2007, 19:27

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

**TinCow** · 11-19-2007, 18:46

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.

**FactionHeir** · 11-19-2007, 19:23

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.