Post cataclysm mechanics

[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.

[Zim]

Hmmm..after my one day run for Duke(with the Kaiser's support no less), is this something else I could run a losing race for?

[Cecil XIX]

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.

[Privateerkev]

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...

[AussieGiant]

Come on PK...5 or 6 characters...what is this?

a mafia family or a consitutional monarchy?

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.

[TinCow]

I would like to make a few general comments from my perspective as the Cataclysm GM.

This thing is an unbelievable amount of work. I am not joking. I have to actually schedule time during the week to get it done and even then it continues to take far more time than I anticipate. Now, that's not a huge problem because (1) I created the system myself and am entirely responsible for the amount of time it consumes and (2) it has a specific limited duration and I know exactly when it will be over. I also am very well aware that people like the freedom this system has given them a great deal. Some of the above proposed rule changes are designed to carry over that freedom into the rest of the game. I have some words of warning about this.

First, beware of increasing the time demands on the Chancellor. While it is voluntary, that position is a necessary part of the game and someone has to do it. It already involves a good amount of work in keeping the armies balanced, allocating battles, setting proper build queues, etc. Every little bit that we increase the complexity will make the position less enjoyable to hold, decrease the number of people who have the time and desire to do it, and slow down the game. My phase of the Cataclysm has been fun, without a doubt, but it has been SLOW. I think many people would be very annoyed if this slow pace continued for the rest of the game. We need to find ways to increase freedom that do not greatly hinder the Chancellor.

Second, beware of creating arbitrary limits in the name of balance or in the belief that they are balanced. I have developed several specific rules on recruitment and economics for the cataclysm. They are nice and fun and I think they have worked well enough. However, you need to all be aware that they are completely broken. There is nothing remotely balanced about them at all. I have maintained balance by making ridiculous alterations both to the players and the AI with my GM-bestowed powers of omnipotence. Without my active involvement in tweaking things on both sides every single turn, the Catalcysm system would not work even remotely well. If you start creating similar rules for KOTR, but do not have someone there who can make sure it balances out in the end, the game will develop some serious problems.

The most important thing that I have learned from KOTR and the Cataclysm is that freedom breathes life into the game, but rule complexity chokes it to death. I would strongly urge that we do NOT adopt any rules that will make the Chancellor's role more complex or that will slow down the game. If we want to do something that will increase complexity, we should simultaneously find a way to streamline another area so that the overall duties do not increase. The same applies to game speed. If we adopt rules that slow the game down, we should change other rules so that other aspects speed up.

If we cannot figure out a way to do this without completely re-writing the rules from the ground up, then we either need to keep playing KOTR the way it is, or declare it over and start a new game with a new rule system.

[AussieGiant]

You summed up my global policy about the game from day one very well TC.

And by the way TC, do you have a sister that acts like you, thinks like you but is not you??

Cause if you do...and I don't care if she's got a boyfriend I HAVE TO MEET HER!!

Fantastic post and hence my reluctance to change anything really except have those triple gold chevron full armour upgraded armies wondering around.

[Ramses II CP]

I think Tincow just said KISS:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Keep it simple, stupid.

Sounds like smart policy to me.

[econ21]

If we cannot figure out a way to do this without completely re-writing the rules from the ground up, then we either need to keep playing KOTR the way it is, or declare it over and start a new game with a new rule system.

I think the revisions I've suggested are relatively minor and simple - I don't think they amount to a re-write from the ground-up. I must admit Stuperman's idea about a full rules re-write filled me with dread.

One good thing about these PBMs is how we let the rules change over time. This game built on the KotR trial, which built on WotS. The Cataclysm is rather like the KotR trial in that it has given a radical change in game mechanics. I think it would be good to incorporate some of the good things about that - the freedom, the challenge - into the normal rules. But as you say, we need to keep an eye on the issues of speed and simplicity - those are the things that killed the full blown decentralisation of the KotR trial.

Also, I think we are in part now trialling ideas for a new game. IMO, we have not yet cracked a couple of key issues in PBM design - how to keep it challenging; and how to make sure every player has their fair share of battles. The Cataclysm mechanics did provide solutions to those problems, albeit at a great and unsustainable cost in terms of TC's time. I think limits on army size - plus spawning AI armies - may be a big part of the solution to the challenge. And I think having multiple modest armies and feudal levies may be the way to give all players some battles (as opposed to the Chancellor or Dukes doing everything thing with half a dozen uber armies).

I think it is worth testing those ideas - even if just for 5 turns - rather than starting a new game, because the cost of testing them in KotR would be low whereas we are not ready to let the game die just yet.

*****

We need to find ways to increase freedom that do not greatly hinder the Chancellor....I would strongly urge that we do NOT adopt any rules that will make the Chancellor's role more complex or that will slow down the game.

I think the only proposal in this thread that threatens a big increase in the Chancellor's workload and a slowdown is CA14.2. By allowing people the freedom to specify moves for their characters we increase the burden the Chancellor to implement those orders and potentially slow the game down.

However, on the issue of speed, I don't think a 24 hour window between posting a new turn save and making character moves will markedly slow the game down. I know I got criticised for whizzing through my turns too quickly as Henry and so as Elberhard, I promised a day or two interval between turns to give people time to catch up with what was going on. We almost always have battles each turn and if that 24 orders window is also the window to fight your battle, then there won't be a further delay.

On the issue of complexity, that is why I initially suggested that players could download the save and make the moves themselves. That saves the Chancellor having to print out or note PMs, then bring that info to the save. I guess the Chancellor can just tell players to go ahead, download the save and make the move.

If we adopt rules that slow the game down, we should change other rules so that other aspects speed up.

I think we have been shifting from a 48 hour window to fight battles to a 24 hour window, which is a good thing. I don't think waiting for players to fight battles causes big delays for KotR - we've gotten pretty good at sticking to deadlines and pressing on if some can't meet them.

The main thing that could slow the game down is a Chancellor who gets very busy and unable to keep the game going at a decent pace. This is what dragged WotS down at the end under Lucjan and caused problems for KotR with a couple of Chancellors. TC's phase of the Cataclysm has not felt slow to me because he posts a new turn within a day or two of everyone fighting their battles. I suggest:

OOC CA 14.8: Chancellors should aim to post annual reports and savegames within 48 hours of the deadline for fighting all battles (offensive or defensive). Chancellors who fail to do this three times may be subject to an OOC impeachment vote.

I think this CA just makes explicit the standards we have been working to. It's softly worded ("aim to"; "may be subject"), so we can be sensitive to Chancellor's reasonable OOC issues.

*****

Second, beware of creating arbitrary limits in the name of balance or in the belief that they are balanced. ... Without my active involvement in tweaking things on both sides every single turn, the Catalcysm system would not work even remotely well. If you start creating similar rules for KOTR, but do not have someone there who can make sure it balances out in the end, the game will develop some serious problems.

One reason why I would like limits on army sizes is that it will make it is easier to balance the CA14.1 tweaks to the AI. I will have a rough idea of what, say, Franconia can come up with - roughly a full stack of Household armes, with one or at most two full stacks provided by the Chancellor and Kaiser/Prinz, plus some feudal levies. I would then know that, say 4 Polish full stacks and 4 Russian full stacks created at a Diet should provide a decent challenge. If there are no limits on the number or size of the player armies, it is harder for me to balance - I would just be working one side of the equation.

But, as I said, I think this is mainly an aesthetic thing. I would rather create modest AI forces every 10 turns and tighten the constraints players work under than every other turn have to spawn monster all gold AI armies. The intensity of the latter is fine for the cataclysm when we are under invasion, but I suspect it would get old under normal play. It would be like the endless full stack battles that went on in WotS and got some players fed up with the Very Hard campaign difficulty setting ("Another heroic victory... throw the medal onto the pile...").

I recall some of the most fun and challenging WotS battles were when we had Roman half stacks bumbling into full stack Carthies, Macedonians, Egyptians and Seleucids. Mount Suribachi could testify to that. But these were not uber 9 chevron armies - they were just regular full stacks. So our Romans were not fighting supermen, but they were just being stretched and outnumbered.

*****

Going back to reducing complexity: I had a thought about how to implement the feudal levy so that it does not cause confusion. Every Diet, I could post screenshots of people's levy for information and I could reorder the stacks so the levy units were the first ones in their avatar's stack.

Then it should be fairly easy for players and the Chancellor to keep track of what are avatar's feudal levies - they would be the first four units in their stack (five for Dukes/Prinz).

[Stuperman]

I think you are right econ, a full re-write of the rules is probably a bit much.


I like the idea of spawning several large enemy stacks every diet session, but if we really want to spread the battles around, then perhaps we should also spawn small rebel stacks in each province (or increase the natural spawn rate) this would give many lesser generals; battles to fight, a chance to exp-up their feudal levies, a chance to gain some traits.

The idea of the feudal levies is sounding more and more appealing to me although I still am doubtful. I think starting with 4 peasants is a little weak, maybe town militia and peasant archers.

My other concerns are with keeping track of everyone's wealth, the actual process of upgrading everyone, and the work/reward ratio. How much is this going to bring to the game? especially if it adds hours and hours of work to the job of chancellor?

[TinCow]

I think the revisions I've suggested are relatively minor and simple - I don't think they amount to a re-write from the ground-up. I must admit Stuperman's idea about a full rules re-write filled me with dread.

It was not my intention to say that your CAs were re-writing the rules from the ground up. I was simply making a general observation about the game. Re-writing from the ground up is stuff like I sent you last week. By comparison, even the most radical of the above CAs are simply a minor to moderate change.

I think limits on army size - plus spawning AI armies - may be a big part of the solution to the challenge. And I think having multiple modest armies and feudal levies may be the way to give all players some battles (as opposed to the Chancellor or Dukes doing everything thing with half a dozen uber armies).

I think it is worth testing those ideas - even if just for 5 turns - rather than starting a new game, because the cost of testing them in KotR would be low whereas we are not ready to let the game die just yet.

I agree. My concern about the army size CA is not that it would make the game more complex or slow it down. If anything, it's the perfect example of how to make significant changes to the gameplay without increasing the burden on the players. My concern about army size is simply that it will be too hard. Thus, I fully support a 5 turn trial period to figure it out.

Also, I was not speaking about any of your legislation at all in my "arbitrary limits" paragraph. That was more a cautionary tale for everyone based on my economic, recruitment, and movement rules, which I should really rename "guidelines."

Going back to reducing complexity: I had a thought about how to implement the feudal levy so that it does not cause confusion. Every Diet, I could post screenshots of people's levy for information and I could reorder the stacks so the levy units were the first ones in their avatar's stack.

Then it should be fairly easy for players and the Chancellor to keep track of what are avatar's feudal levies - they would be the first four units in their stack (five for Dukes/Prinz).

The levies idea intrigues me, but I am worried about the complexity. That is much less of a problem if you truly can do it all yourself, but I know there are limits on your time as well. I don't want the solution to all of our time and complexity problems to become 'let econ21 deal with it.' That's just unfair. You're a player as well as a the TR mod and KOTR overseer. We need to make sure we don't overwhelm you while we are trying to spare ourselves.

I also question how much value this will bring to the game in comparison to the costs in time and complexity. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have not personally found the unit recruitment and allocation system in the Cataclysm to be particularly fun. It is useful because it makes people struggle for resources, but I think it is the struggle itself that provides the most entertainment, not necessarily the intricacies of army customization. Most of the large armies that have been built have migrated towards a normal balance anyway, proving that what people want is really what we also give them in under the normal KOTR rules. Thus, minor tweaking of units seems to me to be of low benefit in comparison to the time and energy it will eat up.

That said, I do see a major potential in your levy idea: ownership. I get the sense that people really, really like "owning" things in the cataclysm. They like being able to look at the map and say "That city and that army are mine. No one else can take them away from me against my will unless they pry them from my cold dead hands." That gives people a great deal of incentive to protect their assets and accumulate more. It is the basic building block of a true balance of power and a proper political system. While basic KOTR rules can "give" people Counties, I doubt many of us have really identified with them to a great extent.

I put a lot of effort into making Lothar care about Florence, but at the end of the day, the person behind Lothar (me) didn't really give two florins what happened to it. No matter how much I wrote about it IC, the place never really felt like 'mine.' In contrast, being able to directly and materially draw on the resources of all of Bavaria has made me rabidly passionate about it. I let some of Bavarian cities fall early without a fight because I could justify it IC and it needed to be done to achieve the post-cataclysm status I am working towards. In contrast, I just recently stuck Lothar in Milan in a situation where he might very much die. I'm not sure I can beat that stack, but I simply couldn't stand the thought of letting it go without a fight when I had an army to fight with. At the same time, I have been agonizing about what to do with Nuremburg. I don't have enough electors or armies to pacify the place and keep it that way. It's tearing me up every time I have to roll a die to see which building gets knocked down, because I know those are my personal resources that are going down the drain. If this were the normal game, I would just shrug and add the building back to the construction queue, because its loss would have no material impact on me as a player.

If we can somehow find a way to continue this sense of ownership, perhaps we can make people more invested in the game. Many of us are invested in our characters themselves because we spend a lot of time creating their backstories and having them climb the political ladder. However, few of us care about the actual individual armies or cities. We may say so IC, but did any of really care OOC when Rome was lost? I suspect not. I think there is a lot of room to explore ownership via armies and provinces. It may require new rules that are too radical for KOTR, but the levy idea in general is a small step in that direction and for that reason alone I am willing to give it a try. Again, I would urge a trial period, but it would be an interesting thing to test.