Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Song of the Dead Take II Discussion Thread. Options · View
dragoon9105
Posted: Sunday, October 08, 2017 10:28:51 PM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 1,970
Were live again, So Points of Order

We need to decide the status of the HRE

Will it be broken apart, or will it be forced elective and rules dictated for how Emperors should behave.

Discord and discussion in regards to that.

Mod Fixing so county conquest and the other cb's work properly.

The continued use of Khan as a 'Historical Hand' to play Karl, The Hordes, The Aztecs, Possibly Byzantium/Muslim Empires during the Crusades.

Ruling on Achievements/Missions before we get too far in.
Vaniver
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 5:54:50 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 567
dragoon9105 wrote:
Will it be broken apart, or will it be forced elective and rules dictated for how Emperors should behave.
I think we should immediately set it to elective / some council power, so that as soon as Karl dies it'll be one of us (or KHANXLT, if we so choose). We might also want to disburse Karl's kingdoms to the player who has the most territory in the de jure of each, as otherwise they may be a bit of a hassle to get off him. (I'm thinking laws, war declaration, and title revocation, but not the rest.)

Given that the emperor will have the additional retinue size from the size of the HRE, it seems reasonable to limit them to personal levies + retinue for offensive wars against external targets or fights with individual vassals, but allow them all troops they have access to when facing external invasions (which, I assume, will mostly be the Aztecs / Mongols / etc.) or major civil wars (factions or rebellions with at least a third of the players in the HRE in them, for example). For civil wars, we might want to keep them at personal+retinue only, assuming that any players who are on the loyalist side will actually raise their own troops.

(Since the obligation law is now a slider, we likely want it at balanced, as opposed to crippling taxes plus no levies. Let that be something for future emperors to try to get past the council.)

We may also want to drop the de jure drift time significantly, for kingdoms at least. Currently only de jure HRE vassals get a vote, and if it takes 100 years for people to drift in to the HRE, we might be halfway through CKII by the time they're voting.

dragoon9105 wrote:
Discord and discussion in regards to that.
Switch switch switch

dragoon9105 wrote:
The continued use of Khan as a 'Historical Hand' to play Karl, The Hordes, The Aztecs, Possibly Byzantium/Muslim Empires during the Crusades.
This seems good to me; there's some question of whether we'll know a thing is coming or not ("is this the session that Khan should play the Abbasids because of a crusade? Oh, wait, it popped on Avaria instead." ) that might make this bothersome for Khan.
Ranger9000
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 6:00:17 AM
 1st Lieutenant

Joined: 4/11/2013
Posts: 205
I have some complaints about the HRE. Namely that it's already absolutly gutted any hope of say, Blayne-Hadogai and I from expanding into the med as its /all/ HRE now and if we fight to get any land off it we have to fight the entire Empire. If it holds through after the death of the Karlings and the players involved are like, agreeing to pass it off between them in turns then it more or less annihilates any hope of the rest of us doing much of anything for the rest of the game.
dragoon9105
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 6:01:13 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 1,970
Crusades can be controlled somewhat keep in mind.
Vaniver
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 6:20:14 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 567
Ranger9000 wrote:
I have some complaints about the HRE. Namely that it's already absolutly gutted any hope of say, Blayne-Hadogai and I from expanding into the med as its /all/ HRE now and if we fight to get any land off it we have to fight the entire Empire. If it holds through after the death of the Karlings and the players involved are like, agreeing to pass it off between them in turns then it more or less annihilates any hope of the rest of us doing much of anything for the rest of the game.
So, I note that Blayne is in the HRE, and thus can expand easily both within and without. If the Byzantine Empire also becomes part of it through one means or another, then you'll have basically the same options. (Or if you somehow manage to exit the Byzantine Empire and then swear fealty.)

But I also note this is basically the game I proposed we play a long time ago, where everyone was dukes in the HRE (with the 1066 start, so it was a bit more small-scale), and not the typical game with a bunch of independent realms. I expect it to almost always be better to be in than out, and so the HRE will likely grow to swallow all of Europe, much in the same way that the Ming sphere grows to swallow all of Asia in a MP EU4 game.

dragoon9105 wrote:
Crusades can be controlled somewhat keep in mind.
But we have the Kingdom Conquest CB, which looks nearly as good in a bunch of ways. I mean, I can use it on Andalusia, get all of their dukes as vassals, and then use religious revocation to strip a bunch of titles. I probably have to fight the war twice--eventually some of the vassals will refuse and rebel--and so it's not like getting a hundred holdings immediately cleansed of their holders. And it doesn't give the immediate CtA for the entire Catholic world. But it can happen at a much faster pace, and there can be many more of them.
Gollevainen
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 8:53:52 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,145
Location: "I need zoo love!"
Yeah as also a non-hre nation it seems bit lame to have all the western europe in HRE. Also was it true that Khan helped out setting up good positios for some of the players in the western europe and trying to fuck up others like KoM in the otherhand?

FÜR DEN SCHUTZ DER ARBEITER UND BAUERN MACHT


Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
KhanXLT
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 12:50:11 PM
 General


Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 2,568
Ranger9000 wrote:
I have some complaints about the HRE. Namely that it's already absolutly gutted any hope of say, Blayne-Hadogai and I from expanding into the med as its /all/ HRE now and if we fight to get any land off it we have to fight the entire Empire. If it holds through after the death of the Karlings and the players involved are like, agreeing to pass it off between them in turns then it more or less annihilates any hope of the rest of us doing much of anything for the rest of the game.


There's only 1 med island HRE controls currently, 2 if you count Venice.
Gollevainen wrote:
Yeah as also a non-hre nation it seems bit lame to have all the western europe in HRE. Also was it true that Khan helped out setting up good positios for some of the players in the western europe and trying to fuck up others like KoM in the otherhand?


I was playing Charlie like half and half roleplay and Min Max. All the land I took was through event-driven Conquest. Excepting the lands of Venice and Castillo. (Zaragoza had an event to bend the knee)

Charlies realm is literally insane when you take vassal limits into account. I did what I would do in most situations, create super dukes with overlapping de jure in order to create inter realm strife. Vassals fighting vassals means they don't fight Charlie. Players went from there.

Kom would still be under Charlie if he was ai if I never played, and AI Charlie will not be as forgiving. It will not tolerate the heathen.

I was not planning on not playing next week, but If you guys want me to play on until his death I could probably do that. I am like 80% sure I will be in town.

Gollevainen
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 4:29:19 PM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 50,000th Forum Post

Joined: 4/5/2008
Posts: 4,145
Location: "I need zoo love!"
Ok thanks for the clarification

FÜR DEN SCHUTZ DER ARBEITER UND BAUERN MACHT


Irsh Faq wrote:
I've noted with Golle a trend of stirring up as much drama publicly as he can whenever he's up to something shady in the background. Presumably its a smokescreen strategy.
King of Men
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:10:44 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,087
Location: Nowhere
I would suggest that having a human "Hand of History" requires some guidelines for what that player is supposed to do. Clearly Khan and I had different expectations of what he could and should do, and in the cool light of hindsight I'm not sure I was right. If we can work out some shared expectations, so everyone knows what the Hand's job is, we should be fine.

Quote:
Mod Fixing so county conquest and the other cb's work properly.


I would like to leave this to you as you've got the context for it.

Quote:
We need to decide the status of the HRE

Will it be broken apart, or will it be forced elective and rules dictated for how Emperors should behave.


Let me first outline what I see as the current rules: We won't edit the HRE, players can plot or faction to become Emperor, but if they do then the realm size limit applies.

Then we can discuss whether to change those rules. I know there are some people who would like to play basically an HRE game, with the whole of Europe under the Emperor, and elective law (and some other limits) to make for some intrigue. I would suggest, though, that this is not what most of the players signed up for, and that it faces the peripheral players with the unpalatable choice of joining the Empire, fighting doomed wars, or being irrelevant to European diplomacy. My preference would be that we leave the HRE AI (or Hand of History for a session or two), and either break it up by revolt of the players, or subject it to the realm-size limit if someone becomes Emperor. But the floor is open for counterarguments.

Quote:
Achievements


I'll try to get to this tomorrow, right now I'm exhausted from the CPOM and POM both staying obstinately awake far past their bedtimes. I should write an event for that. "KoM has gained the trait 'Stressed' due to the shenanigans of his heirs..."

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:28:11 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,282
Location: Time
I'm open to different possibilities, I was expecting an event to break up the HRE when Charlemenge dies, is this not the case?

I do agree that the 'Hand of History' shouldn't really be messing with player expectations when it comes to thinks like starting religions or lands, and shouldn't generally not go out of its way to 'screw' with a player.

This may or may not apply after Khan has to go/Charlemenge dies; I think I'm open to having Emperor's in the game with very RP'y restrictions on them so they don't become a player controlled blob come EU.

So something like, your calculated realm size is the size of all Duchies directly pledged to you, or via your King titles; maybe give Emperorship a bonus +50 realm size to incentive players to become Emperor. Kingdom tier vassals do not count towards the realm size limit, neither do player vassals. I'm thinking the +50 as a large bonus to offset all the restrictions.

May not use vassal levies in any offencive wars, crusades, jihads, including civil wars and revolts (Exception, player vassals may agree to lend their support to supporting the Emperor).

May use vassal levies in defencive wars vs outside threats, raids, jihads, crusades, etc.

May not change realm laws to ban vassal wars, may enforce realm peace.

Not sure where I stand on Elective vs Non Elective; if allow non-elective then maybe Council must be empowered and succession must be gavelkind (Ensures Emperor gets passed along but the extra King titles get broken up).

May not revoke titles without valid cause not including wrong religion (e.g revoking KoM would be a nono since he was a well behaved vassal who wouldn't raid anyone ever).

*Must* have an All Player Council Whenever Possible (Possible Exceptions to be Discussed).

May only use Subjugation CB's in offencive wars.

I think also some firm guidelines as to what we expect the Emperor to be in relation to all the players in and out; the goal should be something fun for people both inside and outside; I don't think this is impossible to bridge this gap. I think we basically want some hard and soft restrictions such that players outside don't have to fear the Empire as an existential threat, and provide for fun interactions.

Basically I think the Emperorship as a King of the Hill type of situation, being King of the Hill can be an achievement goal, mission goal, or have achievements in regards to winning wars against it and so on. Players in the HRE want to become Emperor, or the power behind the throne. Players firmly outside the HRE want to successfully resist it; the HRE himself also wants to keep any one Human vassal from being too powerful but also can't go out of his way to prevent it straight out; basically we gotta enforce notions of feudalism and the feudal contract asap.



Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Vaniver
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:43:15 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 567
King of Men wrote:
Let me first outline what I see as the current rules: We won't edit the HRE, players can plot or faction to become Emperor, but if they do then the realm size limit applies.
Note that the realm size limit only applies to played characters, and I suspect we may want to clarify whether that is at the start of the session or the end of the session. For example, one could imagine Arthmael becoming emperor during session 2 and me saying "okay, at the next rehost I will switch to Deui, king of Brittany, and leave Arthmael as AI emperor of the HRE." That doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should cause the HRE to be edited down to 150 holdings, but also gets rid of much of the intrigue about becoming emperor (since you won't be able to do much with it, besides the auction mana for having had your dynast on top).

King of Men wrote:
I know there are some people who would like to play basically an HRE game, with the whole of Europe under the Emperor, and elective law (and some other limits) to make for some intrigue.
I do want to clarify that I'm not one of those people--after I suggested it, I was convinced that an HRE intrigue game makes for a poor start to a great game and doesn't convert well. (Given the existence of the HRE I'll make the most of it, but this is a categorically different game from a bunch of independent realms and I notice that being a vassal allows for a large amount of cheese, especially combined with our mod CBs.)

The Professor wrote:
I'm open to different possibilities, I was expecting an event to break up the HRE when Charlemenge dies, is this not the case?
This appears to not happen in test games people have run so far. I haven't gone event-diving yet to look for it, but I think we should assume that won't happen, or if it does happen, it will be reforged by the regular dynamics of it being better to be in than out.

The Professor wrote:
So something like, your calculated realm size is the size of all Duchies directly pledged to you, or via your King titles; maybe give Emperorship a bonus +50 realm size to incentive players to become Emperor. Kingdom tier vassals do not count towards the realm size limit, neither do player vassals. I'm thinking the +50 as a large bonus to offset all the restrictions.
Player vassals not counting towards the realm limit is fairly easy to calculate, as is kingdom-tier vassals not counting towards them; tracking who specifically is a vassal of the Emperor's primary non-empire title (that their heirs will inherit if they don't get the empire) is more of a pain, especially if there are multiple of them.

I also note that it's fairly easy to elevate dynasts to king-tier vassals, especially if one is the emperor, and it's not obvious that this shouldn't count against their realm size in some meaningful capacity. In the degenerate case where there's only one player in an empire (suppose, for example, Ranger magically becomes the Byzantine emperor), this means that they basically don't have a realm size limit--the primary title needs to be small, but everything else they just give away to dynast branches and the empire can grow arbitrarily large. Giving a larger realm size for emperor tier and then not counting player vassals underneath means that empires can only grow large if they have lots of players in them, and that the emperor needs to promote their human vassals in order to make the empire bigger, rather than simply spinning off a dynast kingdom as a loyal vassal.

The Professor wrote:
May not revoke titles without valid cause not including wrong religion (e.g revoking KoM would be a nono since he was a well behaved vassal who wouldn't raid anyone ever).
I think this is the sort of thing that the Council Laws handle--if a player council votes yes on the revocation of KoM's title, then that seems fine. (And this also means that sympathetic rebels can't have their titles stripped, etc.)

---

My sense is that while the subjugation / conquest CBs have made things less RNG-sensitive at the start (which is good; I had to wait an aggravatingly long time to get my first claim on Brittany), they are a general force for inequality rather than equality. Being big helps one get the 1500 prestige necessary to kick off a kingdom subjugation and being big helps one win the resulting war. Being big makes county conquests easier to pull off. Combined with some variation in our starting sizes, and then variation in how much support one got from the Emperor, one session in we have some fairly huge disparities that look like they'll get bigger rather than smaller.

(My read was that Khan did basically the right thing, and was roughly fair to each of the French players and had less opportunity to support Yami Fenrir but tried anyway. But still, a combination of my conquests and vassals I was handed by Khan means that I feel like I'm in roughly the position Dragoon was in last game, and if I wanted to game over most players I wouldn't have significant trouble in doing so, which seems like not the intended balance of power one session in.)
dragoon9105
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:15:42 PM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 1,970
To be fair, all the land Khan gave me I could have conquered myself with County Conquest. Dunno if that was uniform however.

As far as Empire rules, I was suggesting rules for an HRE that would be over realm size limit. Not all empires. The reason why is, once someone becomes HRE under the actual ruleset, they must release their land at the end of the session to get below 150 Realm Size.

The main question to answer in regards to this is Do we want the HRE to be special and have multiple players trying to become emperor? Or do we treat it as any other Empire.

From that answer we can build a ruleset to sufficiently nerf it and prevent everyone from joining it.

Byzantium is not included in this discussion, There is one feudal Player in Byzantium and so making a ruleset for the Empire of the East. If we had a Sicilian, Greek, and two Anatolian Players theres sufficient intrigue to set up a similar situation, we lack that dynamic and so I think its safe to say we treat them the same as Hispania or Britannia.
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:21:19 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,282
Location: Time
Quote:

after I suggested it, I was convinced that an HRE intrigue game makes for a poor start to a great game and doesn't convert well.


Eh, fundamentally it just means that anyone in the HRE converts in EU's HRE; the Emperor is the Emperor; his nation is his primary King title (not the HRE tag per se, For example Khan right now would France but with the HRE title modifier and HRE mechanics).

All the constiutuent kingdoms and sufficiently large dukes would be Electors; and then following by Dukes, Megacounts, etc, member states.

"HRE but all of Europe" nothing inherently difficult about conversion; just need the right amount of balkanization.

Quote:

Player vassals not counting towards the realm limit is fairly easy to calculate, as is kingdom-tier vassals not counting towards them; tracking who specifically is a vassal of the Emperor's primary non-empire title (that their heirs will inherit if they don't get the empire) is more of a pain, especially if there are multiple of them.


We only need to check essentially once a week, and worst case just delegate that job each other week.

Quote:

I also note that it's fairly easy to elevate dynasts to king-tier vassals


This would be a big reason to be Emperor in the first place as an easier means of placing dynasts. Being Emperor being somewhat more restrictive than being a Kingdom would help offset the advantages here. If you can't use the levies in an offencive war regardless of it being a player or an AI or an AI dynast?

Though maybe make the +RealmSize be proportional to player vassals, so you're encouraged to have a few.

Quote:

but everything else they just give away to dynast branches and the empire can grow arbitrarily large. Giving a larger realm size for emperor tier and then not counting player vassals underneath means that empires can only grow large if they have lots of players in them, and that the emperor needs to promote their human vassals in order to make the empire bigger, rather than simply spinning off a dynast kingdom as a loyal vassal.


An arbitrarily large Empire in this case still only converts with the player only directly owning the initial 150+N; the rest is still broken up but possibly is a source of farming gold, prestige, and dynasty points for conversion.


Though mechanics to encourage acquiring player vassals would be good; I just don't think we need to be too worried about a degenerate case. Player vassals can be more stable than AI vassals for instance.

Quote:

My sense is that while the subjugation / conquest CBs have made things less RNG-sensitive at the start (which is good; I had to wait an aggravatingly long time to get my first claim on Brittany), they are a general force for inequality rather than equality. Being big helps one get the 1500 prestige necessary to kick off a kingdom subjugation and being big helps one win the resulting war. Being big makes county conquests easier to pull off. Combined with some variation in our starting sizes, and then variation in how much support one got from the Emperor, one session in we have some fairly huge disparities that look like they'll get bigger rather than smaller.


Right but the same is true in EU, making CK's mechanics more similar to EU in terms of being intuitive is probably fine long term.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:06:05 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,282
Location: Time
As we get new stragglers I'd like for us to figure out ahead of time what the next available open positions are, Mark wants Mali, or at least a place decently close. Maybe Mauretania?

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Ranger9000
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:24:17 PM
 1st Lieutenant

Joined: 4/11/2013
Posts: 205
IMO at this point it's pretty much join or die for the HRE. If it's not broken up or heavily nerves for player leaders then those of us outside it might as well restart in the middle am east already as expanding in Europe will be impossible (no player (or in all honesty collection of players) will ever have enough to take on the HRE when it has 4+ players inside it and can call vassal levies defensively. And effectively all attackable Europe is already HRE) unless there are massive internal revolts (and why would most of the players revolt when the HRE gives them protection /and/ easy expansion while inside it)

If we're doing the internal wars thing for the HRE I think it should be universal. Those of us in the Byzantium Empire got screwed when the AI implemented no internal wars in the first month of the game and cut our expansion to nothing.
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:05:41 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,282
Location: Time
Well Byz doing that slows it down yes, but then a revolt will happen which will reset that.

I think the ban on using vassals for offensive wars basically keeps things reasonably peer to peer in any case; additional rules could be one wardec per living Monarch.

e: Perhaps we need to think up wars of keeping Empire's unstable.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
Vaniver
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:34:29 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 567
Note that the kingdom subjugation currently doesn't work within the same realm. So anyone outside the HRE is at risk of losing their kingdom title and any ducal vassals at any moment, whereas anyone in the HRE is safe against everyone in the HRE, and anyone outside the HRE has to contend with the Emperor.

I also don't think restarting in the middle east will make too much difference, as the HRE is probably going to continue spreading outward at roughly the same pace, and so this is a reprieve of a few sessions, not a long-term fix.

The Professor wrote:
Well Byz doing that slows it down yes, but then a revolt will happen which will reset that.
In a game with compounding gains, I don't see how that fixes it. Sure, no one else was able to consolidate within Byz, but major consolidation happened outside.
The Professor
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:23:50 PM
 General of the Army

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/17/2007
Posts: 8,282
Location: Time
I feel like your overstating the compoundingness of success, a bad king or civil war is quite the set back even for accomplished realms and not exactly at all a discrete calculable value.

Their game can only exist to be won.
Then so be it who else can see it done.
dragoon9105
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:10:41 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 1,970
Alright well I'm going to propose an HRE ruleset.

Since apparently I need to keep saying this.

This is not a ruling



HRE Ruleset:

General Ruleset:

The Empire cannot expand to encompass Territory outside of Continental Western Europe. Strict Definition: Francia/Germania/Italia/Hispania unless the Lands in question are held by a Player Vassal. Bohemia and Pommerania count as parts of Germania
The Empire cannot permanently expand into Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia or Asia (Past the Urals) Ever. (Creating Dynast Kingdoms in these regions is of course ok)
There can be no more than 7 Players within the Empire at a time counting the Emperor himself. These Seven are considered 'Electors'. Use the Tributary Mechanic instead for protection.
'Electors' Must be placed on the council if they are of age. (There is 7 Slots with a decentralized Empire so this leaves 1 slot for the Emperor to Choose whoever)
No Player Within the HRE can use the Kingdom Subjugation CB (This will be modded in once I can figure it out)
Holding the HRE title will be weighted as more valuable in the conversion than other Empires.

Emperor:

The Emperor must keep Elective Succession. If the Holy Roman Empire at any time is taken off of Elective Succession it must go down to the Realm Size Cap by the End of the Session.
The Emperor can only use his Retinue and his Personal Levy in All Wars. Including Civil Wars and Defensive Wars.
The Emperor cannot enact Imperial Administration or Centralize the Council War Declaration Law unless the Succession has been changed.
The Emperor must release territories gained outside of the Dejure HRE that he does not personally hold, or a Player Vassal Holds.
The Emperor does not have to defend his Subjects if attacked and they can be left to fend for themselves.
Any Kingdom Title the Emperor 'Creates' while he is Emperor must be immediately released.
The Emperor cannot take hostile action against his Electors unless they perform an openly hostile Action to the Empire (Attempted Assassination, Imprisonment, Cuckolding, Rebellion ect)

If an Elector is defending his territory the Emperor must not surrender unless Warscore has reached above 70%. Similarly, Hostile powers are expected to not attack the Emperor or other Vassals of the Empire if they are not involved in the War. Attacking the Emperor/Other Electors in such a case allows them to Join the war for free. (Sieges Qualify, Army Wipes don't, Going on exploratory missions on complete opposite sides of the Empire to wipe 'neutral' retinues/levies and troll people also qualifys. Watch your troops people)

Electors:

Electors may not participate in any of the Emperor's wars unless they are allied, or their personal holdings are in imminent Danger.
Electors must abide by the Realm Size Limit
Electors cannot enlist the Emperor in their private wars.
Electors defending Non HRE territory that they own cannot be defended by the Emperor without an Alliance, unless said war in question is a Holy War or Kingdom Tier CB.

LordSauronOfHertfordshire
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:13:47 AM
 Tesserarius


Joined: 5/22/2017
Posts: 143
I like those rules, though I am sad I will need to eat the Ummayads 1 duchy at a time.

Why conquer when diplomacy is just so much easier.
Vaniver
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:30:04 AM
 Lieutenant Colonel


Joined: 1/19/2014
Posts: 567
dragoon9105 wrote:
The Empire cannot expand to encompass Territory outside of Continental Western Europe. Strict Definition: Francia/Germania/Italia/Hispania unless the Lands in question are held by a Player Vassal.
Suppose that while Alice is the emperor, Bob, a player vassal, conquers Ireland. Later, Bob becomes the Emperor. What happens to Ireland?

dragoon9105 wrote:
There can be no more than 7 Players within the Empire at a time counting the Emperor himself. These Seven are considered 'Electors'. Use the Tributary Mechanic instead for protection.
If it's better to be in than out (say, the tax being lower for being a regular vassal than for being a tributary, and regular vassals being able to declare war on other HRE vassals while tributaries can't), then doesn't this penalize the people who are out, not the Empire / those inside it?
Ranger9000
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:55:22 AM
 1st Lieutenant

Joined: 4/11/2013
Posts: 205
Would it be possible to get the byzantine Empire forced back into allowing internal wars so that those of us stuck in it can potentially expand again without having to try to face off against the whole Empire Tongue
dragoon9105
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 4:53:48 AM
 Lieutenant General


Joined: 8/25/2014
Posts: 1,970
Vaniver wrote:
Suppose that while Alice is the emperor, Bob, a player vassal, conquers Ireland. Later, Bob becomes the Emperor. What happens to Ireland?


Once Bob becomes the Emperor, He'll have to split off Ireland as an independent Kingdom of his Dynasty by the end of the session, or split off parts of it that he doesn't want to keep directly. A Tradeoff for being a part of the Empire.

Vaniver wrote:

If it's better to be in than out (say, the tax being lower for being a regular vassal than for being a tributary, and regular vassals being able to declare war on other HRE vassals while tributaries can't), then doesn't this penalize the people who are out, not the Empire / those inside it?


Giving up your Kingdom Tier Cb is quite a significant Malus I would think. Emperors still have rights on Taxation under the proposed ruleset. Holding territory outside of the allowed Regions also becomes somewhat of a Liability.
King of Men
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:45:54 AM
 Legatus legionis

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/23/2007
Posts: 8,087
Location: Nowhere
Quote:
May not revoke titles without valid cause not including wrong religion (e.g revoking KoM would be a nono since he was a well behaved vassal who wouldn't raid anyone ever).


Pretty sure Khan revoked me for twice refusing to convert, not for definitely not raiding anybody who was in the empire and in particular not the Crown lands right next to Saxony with the disappointingly low loot totals - er, I mean, that aren't tempting at all. Big Grin

That aside, he did make the good point that the AI would likely not have bothered to ask twice for conversion.

Quote:
As we get new stragglers I'd like for us to figure out ahead of time what the next available open positions are, Mark wants Mali, or at least a place decently close. Maybe Mauretania?


So currently we do not have a South Spain player, right? Once that's filled (or unplayable due to one of the other Iberian slots expanding) then I think I'd suggest this algorithm: Put someone in Mali, then expand east at roughly the existing player density. So after Mali the next slot is probably Tunis, then South Italy, then Poland/Courland, and so on eastwards.

Quote:
HRE


At present my inclination is to not mess with it, and just leave it unedited; no doubt a player can make himself Emperor in due time, but he will then have to reduce its size drastically. If we play thus, is there still a large advantage to being in the empire? Large enough that we should consider GM action to force a breakup? If we do mess with the Empire I'm more inclined to break apart than to keep with special mechanics. But, as Dragoon said, none of this is a ruling, just explaining my current thinking.

I observe that "Breaking the Empire" could be an achievement, consisting of becoming Emperor (either HRE or Byz) and then balkanising it.

Read my blog.
Norway Rome The Khanate Scotland Scotinavia Christendie the Serene Republic has always been at war with the Bretons False Empire Caliphate Persians Russians English Hungarians Oceanians Saracen Jackal! Death, death, death to the Frogs barbarians infidels necromancers vodka-drinking hegemonists Sassenach nomad menace Yellow Menace heathen Great Old One!
Yami-Yagari
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:00:10 PM
 Generalmajor


Joined: 1/16/2014
Posts: 1,083
Im fine with whatever, aslong as it doesnt end with a 7 player hre in perpetual mutual status quo.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.