Post cataclysm mechanics

[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.

[AussieGiant]

I would run for Chancellor in a flash if I could.

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.

[Stuperman]

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.