Unofficial Chancellor eligibility poll

[TinCow]

I agree with the comments about revising the heirarchy structure, but it's too complex to change in the middle of KOTR, IMO. Like econ21 said, I have already made a draft of a new feudal heirarchy that I think will provide for a far better system. I really don't think this is the time and place to discuss it in detail, though, since it's intended for the next game, not this one. I have been working on it simply so that econ21 and I can have a complete draft of a new rule set to propose when it is needed. However, that is months away, and discussing it now will simply distract from KOTR.

[FactionHeir]

As I said a long while back, I have already done a small draft for the next PBM as well. Should be interesting how many ideas overlap in the end.

[Warmaster Horus]

Well, we've got a good occasion right now to change the rules if we need to.

I voted no, because I couldn't in any case. CA 14.8 (the one about a time limit for the Chancellor) would not work with me. Also, I wouldn't like the responsibility. One mistake and it's *makes throat slash gesture*

[Ramses II CP]

Having recently read through a lot of old material what strikes me most about KotR is that it's been easy. The political squabbling and infighting developed because the HRE was never seriously threatened. That old historical truism; if your people have no enemies they create them. Even having a GM actively breaking up the empire is less about struggling to survive and more about trying to satisfy him that it's broken up enough.

I think if hotseat battles vs the AI were playable you could form an 'opposition team' (Perhaps formed of players who don't yet have an avatar, or recently lost theirs) who built some of the AI nations up intelligently, but didn't actively play them in the same sense as a multiplayer campaign. By switching AI control on and off during the turns you might even hide which other countries were controlled. As it stands now even during the Cataclysm and TC's best efforts the AI has no high star/dread/chivalry generals to supply for him, no decent army stacks of it's own, and no initiative or intelligence behind it's strategic advance. Imagine if the players were suddenly faced with a Mongol Invasion run well. Half of Europe (Or the Middle East) might fall in short order. Or if England surrendered to France or Scotland and became a vassal to survive?

I have a skewed view of things because I've participated in so little actual play, but to me it seems like TC, and some others helping, are putting out a lot of effort just to try to get the AI to do anything decent. If the game were more of a challenge I suspect there would be less politics and infighting.

All of that being said, I don't know that an OT is technically feasible, it's just the only thing I can think of that could force the player's nation into not automatically being the big dog on the map. Right now we can absolutely count on every other country being stupid and ultimately failing and because of that we feel we have the luxury to struggle amongst ourselves.

[TinCow]

I certainly think that all future PBMs should start with hotseat enabled, though with only one faction selected. That will let us play as we always have, but will enable far greater control over the AI if we ever decide it is needed.

[Stuperman]

I certainly think that all future PBMs should start with hotseat enabled, though with only one faction selected. That will let us play as we always have, but will enable far greater control over the AI if we ever decide it is needed.

I think that's a good Idea, even if it's only to force the AI to take settlements that we've 'abbandoned'

[FactionHeir]

I'm not sure whether that will work well or not. In M2TW, having hotseat enabled can lead to us being unable to fight any defensive battles and lose start of turn information.

[TinCow]

I thought enabling hotseat and only selecting one faction to play made the game run as normal. The only diffence would be that the "control" console command would work.