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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Fredericus Erlach, Overseer of Genoa, Count of Ajaccio in exile, 4th elector of Bavaria.
I'll pick up on three things that have attraced most concern: players making their own moves; half stack armies; and feudal levies.
*****
On 14.2, Factionheir makes some good points. I can see that 20 players downloading and uploading the save every turn is a potential nightmare. How about:
OOC CA 14.2 (rev):At the start of each turn, the Chancellor will post an annual report on the last turn, including a save game. The report will list battles that could be fought this turn. Players will have 24 hours to fight these battles or suggest moves for their characters.
This is pretty close to what we do now, except that the Chancellor will not move your character for 24 hours, so you have time to check out alternative moves. As now, he will highlight battles this turn, but you will have to make the move on the map, as well as fight the battle, or not - as you prefer. I think this will give army commanders at little more autonomy and fun without adding that much to the burden of running the game. The 24 hour window is tight and could be extended to 48 hours depending on the situation. But I would like to make 24 hours the default position to keep things going and, if an offensive battle waits for a turn, it's not the end of the world.
*****
On 14.5, may be I was not clear - the half stack limits the strength of each of the 12 formal armies listed (the Household Armies, the Outremer, Prinz and Kaiser armies). Each of these will be controlled by one general. However, that general will also have their feudal levy, so they could have 14-16 units in their stack.
Plus a general could stack with another general. So they could bring in another feudal levy. Or even leave their feudal levy home and stack with a second formal army.
For really tough battles vs the Timurids, Polish all cav armies etc, we could still meet them with appropriate forces, it is just it would require more coordination and cooperation between players. Rather like how we took down the Mongols - with multiple armies all converging and working together. One player with a mega army could not do it alone. I think having this constraint would make the challenge more interesting.
On the army composition, let's forget about the Household Army CA specification. That was originally guidance, so we don't need to make it prescriptive now. We will be bound only by the Historial Army Composition rule. That means up to 4 cav (including the general) per 10 unit stack, not the 2 the CA originally mentioned.
So we can rephrase things:
OOC CA14.5 (rev): a) There can only be 14 formal armies in the game. 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).
b) Each formal army should consist of no more than 9 units (excluding the general).
c) Battles should only involve armies, feudal levies or garrisons. They can freely stack or reinforce each other.
d) Garrisons should not exceed 5 units.
e) Crusading armies are exempt from this rule.
What this rephasing does is say that we can have 14 half stack armies, as well as our feudal levies. These should be our field forces that we fight battles with. I think imposing a bit more structure on the game will help with CA14.2 - players will know what troops are theirs - and it would also make the job of Chancellor a bit more challenging, as he cannot be so ad hoc.
One other point to make is that when - per CA14.1 - I use the console to beef up AI armies, I will also make their armies historical. Sometimes the AI will hit us with more hardcore formations of their own, but that just adds to the fun.
Here's the rough army composition I used to create armies at the start of the cataclysm, based on reading of miniature wargames army lists and a lot of interpreation (I am happy to amend them if people are more knowledgeable about the history):
Egyptians – 3 stacks
1 General
1 Royal Mamluks
4 Mamluk archer
4 Turkomans
1 Arab Cavalry
1 Tabardariyya
3 Kurdish javelinmen
3 Desert Archers
2 Saracen Militia
*****
On the feudal levy, it may just be too much trouble to have the upgrading mechanic. I agree it is right that may be better built into a new PBM. Why not just leave the CA as it stands and forget about all the stuff on points in the spoiler? Reposting, what it said was:
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.)
So I will just assign four or so units to be "yours" each Diet. I won't give you four peasants, promise. You will have to look after your boys for 10 turns and the Chancellor can be responsible for retraining. When another Diet comes around, you can PM me about upgrades, but they won't be points based - just made at my discretion.
One suggestion for AI army composition you can read in the previous OOC thread where I posted a suggestion, based on my own experiences.
On a sidenote, will there be any change on the knight limit for army composition? Most HRE cavalry is knights and the nonspears (except 2 handers) are knights too. I was thinking possibly uncoupling knights and cavalry, and in that case lower the amount of (foot) knights in the army.
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.
"I'm going to die anyway, and therefore have nothing more to do except deliberately annoy Lemur." -Orb, in the chat
"Lemur. Even if he's innocent, he's a pain; so kill him." -Ignoramus
"I'm going to need to collect all of the rants about the guilty lemur, and put them in a pretty box with ponies and pink bows. Then I'm going to sprinkle sparkly magic dust on the box, and kiss it." -Lemur Mafia: Promoting peace and love since June 2006
Originally Posted by TosaInu
At times I read back my own posts [...]. It's not always clear at first glance.
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".
Originally Posted by Cecil XIXI
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!
Or alternatively, we could just gold-stack a lot of the enemy troops. That seems to be effective.
"I'm going to die anyway, and therefore have nothing more to do except deliberately annoy Lemur." -Orb, in the chat
"Lemur. Even if he's innocent, he's a pain; so kill him." -Ignoramus
"I'm going to need to collect all of the rants about the guilty lemur, and put them in a pretty box with ponies and pink bows. Then I'm going to sprinkle sparkly magic dust on the box, and kiss it." -Lemur Mafia: Promoting peace and love since June 2006
Originally Posted by TosaInu
At times I read back my own posts [...]. It's not always clear at first glance.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by GeneralHankerchief; 11-20-2007 at 01:38.
"I'm going to die anyway, and therefore have nothing more to do except deliberately annoy Lemur." -Orb, in the chat
"Lemur. Even if he's innocent, he's a pain; so kill him." -Ignoramus
"I'm going to need to collect all of the rants about the guilty lemur, and put them in a pretty box with ponies and pink bows. Then I'm going to sprinkle sparkly magic dust on the box, and kiss it." -Lemur Mafia: Promoting peace and love since June 2006
Originally Posted by TosaInu
At times I read back my own posts [...]. It's not always clear at first glance.
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.
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.
But I wont be back until the 18th of December...work is really preventing me from giving it a shot...and could you imagine a chancellorship with Arnold at the helm...
as Patrick Harper from the Sharpe series would say.
God save Ireland!!
Even if I could run...the level of legislation is becoming so large it would detract from the experience and fun in my view...and that should never be even a background consideration for people not to run as chancellor.
Having the same OOC people do it is not ideal in my view.
Factionheir's response is exactly what should not be happening...not that I have a problem that he wants to run...but the fact he or any of us could have that thought means we've probably gone too far already.
FH, you know what I mean? You should run, but if you or even some of the veteran players are aware that things are that complex, then it's becoming an issue. And I believe we shouldn't have that issue.
I've been thinking of running for a while now, I admit it is getting rather complex, Perhaps we should scrap the old constitution and start anew. With potentially a new house, some of the other Major modifiers econ suggested, and issues with recruitable generals, maybe a new document is in order, although it would only be right to put it to a vote.
Fredericus Erlach, Overseer of Genoa, Count of Ajaccio in exile, 4th elector of Bavaria.
If it weren't for the fact that Becker has absolutely no interest in the Job, I'd probably run for Chancellor at some point. Hopefully I'll do that with the next guy.
Since we're talking about post-cataclysm mechanics here, what do people think about OOC legislation to handle the Black Death? Something simple that dictates that avatars must be out of settlements one turn before the plague hits. Now I probably won't have an avatar so this won't effect me. But most of you will.
This would be OOC because it would be regardless of who was Chancellor and regardless of political animosity. Unless we want to leave open the possibility of having the Chancellor throwing their enemies into plague ridden cities... :D
As for chancellor, the big reason why I won't do it is because I do not believe I could give the time to it that all of you deserve. The lesser reason has to do with what AG said. Though it's not the legislation that would make it cumbersome for me.
It's the immense amount of politicking over every single move. I'm afraid that if I didn't clear every single decision between 5 or 6 powerful characters, I'd get my character impeached. Maybe the reality of being Chancellor is quite different but that is my perception from the outside looking in. I just don't want to deal with the massive influx of PM's...
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.
Post cataclysm mechanics
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Zim
Bookmarks