Post cataclysm mechanics

[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).