Post cataclysm mechanics

**AussieGiant** · 11-21-2007, 02:36

Ahh,

Econ's post takes me back to my history classes at uni.

The migration from fuedal tactics to pike and shot tactics where a wonderful period of discussion in a few of our lectures.

**Cecil XIX** · 11-21-2007, 04:11

Tincow's right on the money about ownership, though it's quite easy to get attached the way the rules were pre-cataclysm. I got attached to Prague by researching 'Mahren', and then deciding that I wanted Prague to excel at something. Knowing something that makes your city special really gives you a sense of commitment, even if it's just that your militia are the best armored in the Reich. I also think an increased sense of ownership would be more realistic, too. I believe people were most loyal to the guy directly above him, not the guy at the top.

I'm also very fond of this levy system, for those very reason.

**AussieGiant** · 11-21-2007, 04:29

Hey Cecil,

Are you going to respond to Bane?

**econ21** · 11-21-2007, 10:51

Thinking a bit more about the wording of the half-stack CA, I am wondering if it is too restrictive.

First off, requiring the Chancellor to get an edict to raise an army is a nice idea BUT the Chancellor is unknown at the time we propose Edicts so it won't really work.

Second, I am not sure we need to limit ourselves to 2 Imperial armies. That may be good for the challenge, but goes against my idea to try to give everyone a chance to fight battles. And it may be cruel post-cataclysm to take away a player's toys - the units they have acquired - just because they don't get one of the limited number of formal armies.

Third, we should allow for small detachments - stacks of 6 units or less - to fight battles against smaller enemy forces when our formal armies are far away.

Re-reading the Charter, I was surprised to read article 6.4 which already has some of the ideas about formalising armies and rotating commands that I was wanting to encourage:

Originally Posted by The Charter

6.4 For field armies of seven or more units (including the general), the Chancellor must appoint an “army commander”. The army commander must be a “knight”. Army commanders are appointed for the duration of the Imperial Diet session (10 turn intervals). The post is expected to be rotating. Army commanders can decide what to do with prisoners after battle. They can be dismissed by Chancellors, but must be informed of this.

We have not adhered to this provision very closely, but I think it would be characterful to have formalisation like "Lorenz Zirn, Commander, 2nd Imperial Army" etc.

So I propose simplifying the wording of the half stack rule to:

OOC CA14.5 (rev MkII): Armies should consist of no more than 9 units plus a general. They can only stack with or enter battle with other armies, feudal levies or garrisons. Garrisons should not exceed 5 units. Crusading armies are exempt from this rule. This rule will be trialled for 5 turns.

Note: the Reich's armies are those created by the Chancellor under article 6.4, plus the Household Armies, the Armies of Outremer, of the Kaiser and of the Prinz.

This wording limits our formal armies to half stacks and means we cannot break that limit by having them fight alongside extra units unless they are player controlled (other armies or levies) or they are garrions.

But the rule does not limit the number of Imperial armies a Chancellor can create, nor does it prevent him setting up smaller battles that don't involve formal armies. (Article 6.4 says any field army of 7 or more units must be an army - that's the wriggle room that has allowed non-knights to fight battles, by leading stacks of 6 or less).

If the rule is passed, after 5 turns, we will discuss it in the OOC thread and keep it, drop it or vote on it depending on the balance of opinion.