Post cataclysm mechanics

[GeneralHankerchief]

I am against imposing any limitations on HRE army size/composition aside from the Historical Armies imposition that has been in place since the beginning of the game.

From an RP perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for the leader of a country to restrict the amount of armies in the field, especially if he is taking losses. Besides, the amount of avatars present makes a good limit, considering our rules about captains and autoresolving. Also consider that there's a good chance that there will always be some generals, especially with the current influx of recruited bodyguards, that some of them will not be knights and thus not be able to lead armies.

I'm perfectly okay with pumping up the AI's strength as much as we can. But I see no point in doing that and restricting the forces at our disposal as much as we can.

[Cecil XIX]

I, for one, was every excited when I saw the mechanics for upgrading feudal levies. That's the kind of custimization that I like very much.

[econ21]

I am against imposing any limitations on HRE army size/composition aside from the Historical Armies imposition that has been in place since the beginning of the game.

From an RP perspective, it makes absolutely no sense for the leader of a country to restrict the amount of armies in the field, especially if he is taking losses.

Well, I would not argue from a RP perspective. The proposal is entirely an OOC one to increase the challenge without having to have spawn excessive AI forces. If you want to rationalise it IC, we could think of the plague - which is about to hit - and the after effect of the cataclysm. After the fall of the Roman Empire, European armies seemed to get much smaller - reflecting the political disintegration.

My feeling is that our players, with a full stack historical army, could only be defeated by consecutively fighting 3-4 full AI stacks. Now, we currently have 12 armies. If they are full stack, then that means spawning 40-50 AI stacks. And even then, we probably would still win as no Chancellor would put their armies into such consecutive fights - they would keep them up to strength. And the AI is so slothful, it would not hit us 3-4 times consecutively.

The cataclysm has increased the challenge both by spawning more AI forces, but also by limiting our recruitment. In Outremer, we could have kept squatting AI armies but what was getting to us was attrition. After the cataclysm, that break of attrition will be much reduced and we will be earning a lot of florins.

We could think of ways to limit recruitment (doubling all our purchase and upkeep costs would be an obvious one). But curtailing maximum army size might do a similar job. Working with 14 stack player armies will introduce an element of danger. I still think players will comfortably handle full AI stacks. But we will have to be a bit more careful. And they can always combine forces if needed.

I guess it comes down to personal preference - I would rather have challenge by fighting with a constrained force than have it by fighting over the top enemy forces. I'm more interested in playing a "thin red line" than battling "endless hordes".

I, for one, was every excited when I saw the mechanics for upgrading feudal levies. That's the kind of custimization that I like very much.

Well, when you PM me each Diet about upgrades, we could use that system for you!

[GeneralHankerchief]

Or alternatively, we could just gold-stack a lot of the enemy troops. That seems to be effective.

[Ramses II CP]

I really enjoy fighting high experience AI armies, ala the Mongols (Or the triple gold bar armies that looked so enticing in the Cataclysm). I recognize, however, that creating those is a lot of work for someone and certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. My reasoning is that 95% of the battles I fight break down to:

1. Engage infantry lines.
2. Flank infantry lines.
3. Pursue routers.

Insert: Overrun poorly protected archers/artillery when convenient.

Reducing my forces doesn't change that as much as upgrading enemy morale would.

Also, if I could suggest, at some point we may want a Chancellor or Kaiser who insists on 'modernizing' our armies by disbanding those highly reliable crossbowmen and archers for exclusively gunpowder troops. I don't know about anyone else, but I've very rarely used little guns in battle (Excluding cannons and culverins) and I often wonder if they aren't more of a hinderance than a help. The morale penalty could be offset by experience again, but there's that work load.

[FactionHeir]

I think econ will create the AI armies each diet adequately, i.e. not green, but not triple gold either. Single or double silver usually does the job in terms of preventing a full scale rout within minutes of engagement while not making the troops ridiculously stubborn and refuse to rout at all unless you have high dread.

I'd definitely say we should give the half stacks a try, as long as some restrictions can be lifted on composition.

[OverKnight]

We should also keep in mind that there are different skill levels when it comes to fighting. What might be an interesting battle for one person could be a hellacious rout for someone else. The goal would be to keep it interesting for everyone.

What I'm getting is that the Chancellor will still be a chief executive but there would also be a GM working with the save as well. His role would be more OOC, establishing game balance, handling rebellions and periodically throwing a surprise at the Chancellor. If the GM has some flexibility, with these new rules as guidelines rather than iron clad directives, I feel game immersion and challenge would benefit.

We must be careful not to throw so many new rules at the game that it grinds to a halt or makes the Chancellor position so complicated that few would dare to run for it.

[GeneralHankerchief]

-edit- Looks like OK beat me to the punch.

Also keep in mind that the Chancellor has to oversee all of this.

Sure, the Reich's shrank a bit recently. But if we get these restrictions on play passed, and get back to our pre-1300 size, it's going to be a nightmare for the Chancellor to follow all of the rules. At least, this is my opinion. I remember describing my only Chancellorship (the first one of KotR) as "relaxing." While it certainly won't be relaxing this time around, I don't want it to be impossible to keep track of everything easier. If we follow historical armies and only worry about the AI forces once per Diet session things would go much smoother.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, just going off a whim here, we need a different type of Chancellor. Every "game runner" (including the two most recent "Chancellor periods") has been active in KotR since its inception, with the exception of FactionHeir who joined about a month or two in. Come on, new guys! You can play too!

I don't know if it's just me, but even when we did have a half-stack only rule in WotS a couple of full-stack Consular Armies were allowed.

[FactionHeir]

Full stack armies are possible under econ's proposal, by merging two half stacks, i.e. having 2 generals in a stack.

Also, your levy is added onto the half stack, so stacks tend to be 14-17 units.
Btw, if no one dares to run for chancellor on the grounds it would be too difficult to follow, I'd gladly volunteer.

[AussieGiant]

Hi All,

So...in light of the discussion my thoughts.

14.2 seems like a good compromise and gives a 24 hour window for people to place their avatar if they want.

The next two are not meant too sound harsh, Econ good thinking in principle but it is getting a little unwieldy already…and we are only talking about it.

14.5

scrap it entirely. Leave army composition in and if that is making it too easy then adjust and mandate that the composition is followed. By lowering various units types in the mandatory composition this will make things harder as required.

Opening up the discussion on the "number" is become difficult just reading about it.

With the ability to spawn Gold Chevron Full Armour upgrade armies this should be how we make the battles harder. It's on the AI side so it is easier to deal with and doesn't require any management once created.

With this in place then that follows up on:

14.7

scrap it also. Again too difficult to keep up with and monitor. We now would have multiple rules governing the merging and unmerging of units. This CA in my view is an extension on 14.5 as it is simply providing a mechanism to temporarily boost the under sized half stacks.

Again, econ, your ability to manage this is a credit to you but I would stick with the current legislation on army composition and modify that rather than introduce more rules.

Likewise in 14.1, instead of 4 FULLY upgrade AI armies per Chancellorship you could do 6 or even 8...that would really put the cat amongst the pigeons in my view.

so…

14.1 yes with the ability to add more as necessary.
14.2 good
14.3 good
14.4 good
14.5 scrap, 14.1 will be adjusted to create a competitive AI army list.
14.6 good
14.7 scrap, if 14.1 is creating enough pressure then a levy system is not needed.