View Full Version : OOC Thread
France has prospered under the reign of King Philip the Honorable. Her territories have expanded to encompass all of France itself, as well as England, Wales, Flanders, and Northern Spain. The realm is divided amongst four noble Houses.
In the east, the House of Anjou is the largest and most prosperous. Its Lord, Marquess Raulet Poitevin is an old friend of King Philip, and the two share much in common in their political views. Throughout Philip’s reign, the House of Anjou has received particular favor at Court and has gained immense prestige and honor.
In the south, the House of Gascony is the main rival to the House of Anjou. Its Lord, Count Guillemot de Lyon is a notorious drinker and adulterer and generally embodies everything that King Philip and Raulet Poitevin detest. The House of Gascony was the prominent leading House of France under King Philip’s father, and through his favor they were given vast resources to wage war against Aragon and Navarre. These wars were successful and secured for Gascony a strong hold in Spain. However, this front has languished for many decades now. Military resources were diverted away to the House of Anjou when King Philip assumed the throne, and Guillemot de Lyon has been publicly scorned by the King for his behavior.
In the north of France, Prince Louis, the eldest son of King Philip and heir to the throne, controls the House of Normandy. He could not be more unlike his noble father, and there has been much disagreement between them. As the Viscount of Normandy, Louis expected to gain control over the prosperous territories of England after the successful invasion and conquest, in which Louis’ armies and vassals played a key part. Louis himself earned great distinction and even surpassed his father’s skill at command to become the greatest general in France. However, King Philip believed it more prudent to spread power to the other nobles than to concentrate it in once house, particular one led by his turbulent heir. Philip believed that Louis needed to be taught a lesson in humility and politics before he ascended to the throne, and thus gave the new English provinces to his second son, Henry, who had fought well alongside his elder brother in the war. Thus, all of England and Wales is controlled by the newly named House of Albion, led by Viscount Henry.
Yet, King Philip's last years were not destined to be peaceful ones. Prince Louis did not take his father’s actions in the manner he was meant to. To him, they were a direct affront to his honor and an insult to the blood and sweat he had shed in the conquest of England. Already a man to whom dreadful actions were natural, he decided to get revenge on his manipulative father. Yet, he could not attack the King directly, for fear of losing his claim to the throne. So, Prince Louis decided to strike at his father by manipulating the long-standing rivalry between Anjou and Gascony. Anjou was single-handedly holding the front line against the Holy Roman Empire, France’s old foe. It commanded more strength of arms than any other House, but it was focused on external enemies, not internal ones.
Prince Louis used his immense popularity after the war with England to gain the Chancellorship. From there, he funneled resources to Gascony, quickly swelling the ranks of their armies. Though Anjou was still stronger, it was distracted by the foreign war. With this advantage in their favor, and the secret support of the Chancellor who continued to give them a disproportionate share of France’s treasury, Gascony declared war on Anjou, determined to seize control of several provinces and regain their old position as the preeminent House in France.
And so it was that the War of the Houses began.
King Philip the Honorable (Ramses II CP) – 55 Owns: Paris, Marseille, Ajaccio & 1 Royal Army
House of Anjou
Marquess Raoulet Poitevin (The Lemongate) – 55 Owns: Digon, Metz & 1 Private Army
Count Bohemond Chanteur (Tristan de Castelreng) – 39 Owns: Bern & 1 Private Army
Viscount Jaques de Toulouse (gibsonsg91921) – 29 Owns: Rheims & 1 Private Army
Baron Germain Arnoud (rossahh) – 26 Owns: Antwerp
Baronet Thomas Maquereau (Ichigo) – 27 Owns: Bruges
House of Gascony
Count Guillemot de Lyon (Privateerkev) – 47 Owns: Toulouse, Zaragoza & 1 Private Army
Viscount Richart Marcel (Ignoramus) – 36 Owns: Bordeaux & 1 Private Army
Baron Marcel de Brabant (PrinceofTroy) – 36 Owns: Pamplona
Baronet Michiel (deguerra) – 17 Owns: Valencia
House of Normandy
Chancellor, Viscount, and Prince Louis (OverKnight) – 36 Owns Caen & 1 Royal Army
Baron Perrin Gassou (TheFlax) – 35 Owns Angers
Baronet Bertin de Plaisians (Elite Ferret) – 25 Owns Rennes
House of Albion
Viscount Henry (Cecil XIX) - ? Owns: London, Caernarvon & 1 Private Army
Baron Hugues de Poitiers (Zim) – 28 Owns: Nottingham
Baronet Hermant Tanlay (TinCow) – 27 Owns: York
Notes:
(1) At the time the game starts, it will be treated as though Guillemot de Lyon has just made a Declaration of War against Raoulet Poitevin. Everything else will follow according to the rules. Role-play your characters however you want. Join the war, stay neutral, sue for peace, etc. Split from your House if you don’t like it, join another House, generally whatever you want, keeping in mind the background I have provided to the various Houses and characters.
(2) The rank names have not been altered to fit France. This isn’t meant to be an in-depth game, so don’t both changing them. Just refer to them as they are in the rules for convenience and clarity.
(3) If anyone has a problem with the role I have assigned them, or won’t be able to participate for any reason, please let me know.
(4) The save game file (http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/NBTest1.zip) has not yet been edited. All characters will be moved to locations within their respective provinces with a few exceptions, such as some Anjou avatars who will be inside HRE territory and Gascony avatars who will be on the border with Anjou. I will not be editing the avatars or the city improvements, though, so if you want to see what your avatar or provinces look like, the save is accurate for them. Every single player will have units they already control (Private or Royal Army) or units in their ‘owned’ settlement(s) that they can immediately seize once the game starts, should they wish to. Generally, Anjou will start with stronger armies than Gascony, but they will be out of position to respond to the Gascony attack. In addition, the Chancellor will probably be giving Gascony more support than Anjou.
(5) Please do not open up other threads for this game. I want to keep this organized well, so I will make the necessary threads with the right titles after I have edited the save game. For now, just post in this thread, which will serve as the OOC thread for the rest of the game.
PrinceofTroy
04-22-2008, 17:29
Every time I try to download the savegame it won't allow me to and it says something about Kumagames.exe. I don't know why, does anyone have any idea what this problem is or how to fix it??:idea2:
Thanks,
PrinceofTroy
_Tristan_
04-22-2008, 17:30
Let's start an IC thread and start throwing insults and accusations at each other's face...
_Tristan_
04-22-2008, 17:32
@ PrinceofTroy : DL works for me... But I haven't checked the save yet...
Don't know what the problem might be...
I suppose that's acceptable, just remember that you don't know what armies you will have at your command yet or where your avatar will start, beyond the general outline I gave above. I'll open it in a second...
Privateerkev
04-22-2008, 17:34
Let's start an IC thread and start throwing insults and accusations at each other's face...
I'd love to but TC said he'd start the threads later. Until then we can just keep PM'ing. :D
*edit*
nevermind
GeneralHankerchief
04-22-2008, 20:06
Okay, this was an interesting start to my afternoon.
Give me some time to take everything in and Prince Louis will be heard in due time.
The Lemongate
04-22-2008, 20:53
I fear I started yet another game with an outburst :viking: Oh well, couldn't resist ad hominem attacks! Those are the best :laugh4:
Privateerkev
04-22-2008, 20:57
I fear I started yet another game with an outburst :viking: Oh well, couldn't resist ad hominem attacks! Those are the best :laugh4:
Guillemot had it coming. :yes:
I don't expect anyone to give him a free pass for his reputation. Just don't expect him to always rise up to the bait. :D
Funny, Nottingham was the line at which I had held off the Danes in the MPC game for a little while. It's quite a familiar place after having spent a couple of weeks focusing strategy on it. :beam:
Okay, this was an interesting start to my afternoon.
Give me some time to take everything in and Prince Louis will be heard in due time.
I hope it was ok to saddle you with the Chancellorship. I wanted an experienced player at the helm of the test game, and I figured you hadn't been Chancellor since Heinrich, so you were about due again.
GeneralHankerchief
04-22-2008, 21:30
I hope it was ok to saddle you with the Chancellorship. I wanted an experienced player at the helm of the test game, and I figured you hadn't been Chancellor since Heinrich, so you were about due again.
I appreciate the gesture, but my disk drive's been wonky lately. You may have to find someone else or step in yourself depending on how things go. I'll give you a definitive answer in a day or two.
Ok, I think I've done everything that needs to be done for the save. Let me know if anyone sees anything that looks blatantly wrong.
http://mizus.com/files/pbm/FranceTest_start.zip
In my original setup, we were actually running a defecit of about 4k per turn, so I cut the starting armies down a bit across the board. Now we're running about 2k per turn profit, which doesn't leave much room for lavish investment, but we have a small chunk in the bank which will give the Chancellor an ability to influence things as he wishes. If armies expand much more, money will become tighter, which will probably mimic our next game anyway, so that's not a bad thing.
Note that the AI probably won't be much of a challenge at all in this game. That's not a big deal, since this is designed to test the Civil War and general movement rules, not the AI. Stomp on them all you want.
Also, be aware that this save appears to be from a game with huge unit sizes. Hopefully this won't be a problem for anyone's computer, but in any case the real game will only use large unit sizes like KOTR did.
Let me know if anyone has any questions. If not, you're free to start playing whenever the Chancellor says go.
Ramses II CP
04-23-2008, 03:22
Ahh, sorry, forgot the huge unit sizes bit. I have that on by default. :thumbsdown:
:egypt:
GeneralHankerchief
04-23-2008, 03:24
All right, I'll freeze things for another day or two of strictly political maneuvering and let people sort things out. Sometime on Thursday I'll open the save.
Ramses II CP
04-23-2008, 04:48
So, I can immediately think of one question that doesn't have a well defined 'rules' answer: If the Chancellor rebels, who are the real rebels? Technically since the Chancellor commands armies doesn't anyone who opposes the Chancellor have to rebel to remain in command of their forces?
I'm also curious whether or not people think we should have succession rules for the event of the death of the Chancellor in a civil war. Should his killer or his killer's house then be able to claim the Chancellorship for the rest of his term?
I think there are going to be some significant missteps here on this first turn. I definitely need to figure out what to do to protect my forces from leaking over and joining the Prince, but IIRC there's a rule specific to that and I'm just too tired to recall it well.
Hitting the sack now, but I think things are off to an interesting start.
:egypt:
Privateerkev
04-23-2008, 04:53
As far as I know, the Chancellor can't mess with private and royal armies, men in your town, or men in your fort. Those are yours. And you say where they move. What the Chancellor can do is refuse to build anything in your settlements.
And on a separate note, I finally got a look at the save and boy do we have some cool traits! :2thumbsup:
I've been wondering, I know the Chancellor can't mess with garrisons. But what if you have to leave a settlement or fort to fight off some rebels/enemy armies and your men don't have enough move to come back to the settlement. Can the Chancellor take them then if they want?
Cecil XIX
04-23-2008, 05:44
I've been wondering, I know the Chancellor can't mess with garrisons. But what if you have to leave a settlement or fort to fight off some rebels/enemy armies and your men don't have enough move to come back to the settlement. Can the Chancellor take them then if they want?
Looking at the rules, that does seem to be the case. That seems like a discrepency, conidering the Chancellor's control can be taken away from units in forts and cities.
I'll think about Zim's question after I've been caffeinated. Also, I'll open up an Orders thread that will be in the same format as we'll use for the real game thread. That will be the place where you will indicate which units (if any) you have 'seized.'
*Pre-caffeine*
This definitely seems problematic, perhaps a rule edit is needed.
*Caffeinated*
Ah, this is exactly what I intended when I wrote the rules. People without private/royal armies are essentially limited to the defense of their settlements unless they want to risk the whims of the Chancellor. Low level ranks can protect their property and their lives, but they need help from higher ranks to obtain more property. This applies just as much in a Civil War as in normal play.
Yes, if you cannot kill the rebels and get back to a safe for or settlement in one turn, then you risk the whims of the Chancellor. Your choices under those circumstances are to let the rebels sit, risk the Chancellor disbanding/moving some of your units, or make some kind of deal with the Chancellor. That seems fair to me and not too difficult to achieve. The Chancellor is still answerable to the Diet, so it's not really in his interests to interfere with a neutral party trying to keep their lands clear of rebels. If you're allied with the Chancellor, you should be able to trust him. If you're actively hostile to the Chancellor... well, perhaps that's your biggest problem rather than the rebels.
A truly neutral Chancellor probably wouldn't interfere with such an action. Only a partisan Chancellor would... and that's the point. The Chancellorship is MEANT to be a powerful position, and it's meant to be a huge advantage during a Civil War. Since anyone except the lowliest Knight can be elected Chancellor, this shouldn't be too biased. We want the Chancellorship to be powerful and useful because then people will compete for it. Lack of competition in elections is bad for the game.
Cecil XIX
04-23-2008, 14:15
Tincow, isn't it impossible for any Electors to own fleets in the Test Game?
The Test Game is using the most recent draft of the rules, which can be found here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1891232&postcount=78). Under those rules, fleets can be 'seized' by Dukes, Grand Dukes, and the Faction Leader. So, King Philip can already do it if any ships stop in Marsailles or Ajaccio (which he owns). No one else can unless there is a re-arrangement of ranks that promotes someone to Duke.
I'm also curious whether or not people think we should have succession rules for the event of the death of the Chancellor in a civil war. Should his killer or his killer's house then be able to claim the Chancellorship for the rest of his term?
I think we should just use the existing rules, which provide for an immediate emergency session to elect a new Chancellor. If the dead Chancellor had the support of the majority when he died, they'll probably pick a logical successor to continue the war. If the dead Chancellor did not have the support of the majority when he died, then his death was essentially a major defeat for his side in the Civil War and they should lose the Chancellorship. If you know your side would lose in an emergency session election, keep your Chancellor safe!
Ah, crap. I forgot to include the format for build queues etc in the Status and Orders thread. Thanks for remembering that Ramses. I will edit the standard format and example to include that info. Comments on thread organization in general are welcome. Let me know anything that doesn't work well, should be improved, moved elsewhere, is not needed, etc.
*Edit*
Thread format adjusted accordingly. My intention for that thread is for it to be the one spot where all important individual orders, actions, etc. can be kept for easy reference.
The following is self-explanatory. Also note that I have put the most up-to-date version of the rules in the first post of the Rules Draft thread for convenience, since it was causing problems being down on page 3. I will keep updating the first post as rule changes are formally made.
Hi, these are questions for TC but I figured GH would need to know the answers as well.
A.) In a Civil War, if I want to enter an enemy settlement, do I have to have the MP to enter or just sit outside? What about sieges? Ig can get his Ballista right up to Dijon on turn one. But he can't get in. I can get into Dijon, but have no artillery.
B.) If there is no enemy general in the enemy settlement, can we just "tag" it like in KotR's civil war? Or do we have to fight the garrison?
C.) Can I ask GH to do Gascony's moves? If I upload the save with our moves, Anjou will see them. And vice-versa. But can GH (or TC) move all parties in a civil war after everyone has made their personal moves? That would keep things secret.
Thanks,
Kevin
To: PK & GH
A) Whenever two armies at war move adjacent to each other, a battle will occur. If you move adjacent to an enemy city that has a garrison, you will have to fight to take the city. If you have artillery of some kind that can make an immediate breach, you can attack immediately. If you do not have artillery, you'll have to build siege equipment. It will be up to the umpire of the battle to determine how much you can get, but personally I would just give you the same number of building points you would get if you were up against an AI city.
In any case, it's irrelevant in the present situation. This is the first turn after you made a Declaration of War. None of the Gascony armies can attack this turn, all you can do is move into position.
B) As stated above, you must fight the garrison.
C) Definitely. People do not have to move themselves, it's just an option that's available to them. The Chancellor can do everyone's moves for them if they wish.
On another note, I would like questions like these to be public. These are exactly the kinds of things that the Test Game is designed to deal with. Roleplaying, secrecy, winning, and losing all take a back seat in this game to ironing out the rules and making sure everything works properly and people understand how to play. I think compromising a little secrecy in the Test Game is worth it to make the real game better.
With your permission, I would like to post these PMs in the OOC thread.
Privateerkev
04-23-2008, 16:04
I have another question regarding Chancellor moves. This won't be much of an issue for me but my Anjou colleuges would want to know this.
1.) We are allowed to make our moves with our private armies in the 24 hour window.
2.) The Chancellor can move our stuff if we don't give orders.
3.) We can ask the Chancellor to move our stuff so it does not get seen when people download.
So my question is, if we tell the Chancellor to move our private army, is he doing it IC or OOC?
If Ramses doesn't want Gascony to know he is headed south, can he ask GH to make his move for him? And if GH does, does GH have IC knowledge of that move? And if GH does know IC, can he just refuse? Basically treat it as if Ramses did not submit the orders on time?
Please let me know if I am not being clear.
*edit*
Looking at this again, cleared part of that up:
The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited.
So my new question is, if I ask the player playing the Chancellor to move my army,
A. does he know IC?
B. can he move the army how he wants or refuse?
He does it OOC. The Chancellor essentially has two roles: his IC powers, and his OOC game management. Sometimes the two mix, sometimes they don't. If his actions mesh well with the plot, then you can role-play them as him having some influence in them if you want (such as Chancellor exiling someone to build watchtowers). If his actions make no sense IC, then you can just ignore them and pretend they were done as part of his OOC role (such as moving his own enemy to take one of his cities).
This happened plenty of times in KOTR, such as when I was Mandorf, who was Heinrich's most bitter opponent, but I helped GH declare war on the Pope and make moves that Mandorf hated. The same for Ituralde, who actively collaborated in his own assassination.
Privateerkev
04-23-2008, 16:20
He does it OOC. The Chancellor essentially has two roles: his IC powers, and his OOC game management. Sometimes the two mix, sometimes they don't. If his actions mesh well with the plot, then you can role-play them as him having some influence in them if you want (such as Chancellor exiling someone to build watchtowers). If his actions make no sense IC, then you can just ignore them and pretend they were done as part of his OOC role (such as moving his own enemy to take one of his cities).
Thanks for clearing that up. It helps to know what IC powers the Chancellor has. He's already spoken IC of moving the King somewhere he didn't want to go. So I wanted to know what he could actually do.
So, essentially you have 3 options for moving your private/royal army.
1.) move it yourself in the 24 hour window but people can see if they download after you upload.
2.) ask the Chancellor IC to move you. If your characters like each other, he'll do what you want.
3.) ask the player who is the Chancellor OOC to move you. If your characters don't like each other, the player will still comply with your wishes.
More questions:
A.) If your avatar is in a stack of troops but it is not a legal army, then the Chancellor can disband the troops but can not move the stack because of the "can't move avatar against player will" rule?
B.) If you have a stack of troops, but no avatar in them, and not in a settlement/fort, then the Chancellor can do anything he wants right? Move em, disband em, send them to auto-resolve death, ect...
A.) If your avatar is in a stack of troops but it is not a legal army, then the Chancellor can disband the troops but can not move the stack because of the "can't move avatar against player will" rule?
B.) If you have a stack of troops, but no avatar in them, and not in a settlement/fort, then the Chancellor can do anything he wants right? Move em, disband em, send them to auto-resolve death, ect...
A) Refer to Rule 1.4:
The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited.
If you haven't moved your avatar and haven't given orders restricting how your avatar can be moved, the Chancellor can do whatever he wants with you. This includes Private/Royal Armies. If you aren't going to move yourself and don't want the Chancellor to be able to do what he wants with your force, you need to speak up.
Essentially the rules are the same as in KOTR, but we are giving people more power over their own avatars and armies. However, because this places an added burden on the Chancellor to keep up with these orders, it is the complete responsibility of the individual players to make sure they either move themselves or properly inform the Chancellor by posting the appropriate orders. If you do not do either of these things, you have only yourself to blame if your avatar/army is moved in a way that you don't like.
B) Correct, unless it is a Private/Royal Army and orders have been posted that restrict its movement. Private/Royal Armies without commanders cannot be moved by anyone but the Chancellor, but the Chancellor still can't move them in a way that has been specifically prohibited in the orders.
I want to emphasize this again: this game has the potential to place a heavy burden on the person playing the Chancellor. In order to make this game playable, the burden is on the individual players to submit their orders properly if they do not want to leave everything up to the Chancellor's whims. You MUST post these orders in your post in the Status and Orders Thread.
A game turn is designed to operate most efficiently when played as follows:
1) End turn report/summary (can be brief) and new save game is posted by Chancellor. Chancellor does not do ANYTHING in the new turn yet.
2) 24 hour period for everyone to download the save and do whatever they want with their own avatar/armies. Chancellor can extend this time if he wants.
3) When the time is up, the Chancellor takes the save and plays out the rest of the turn according to his wishes. He looks ONLY at the Status and Orders Thread to determine what restrictions are on him for this phase. If something is not in the Status and Orders Thread, he is free to do what he pleases as long as it is allowed by the rules. When completed, return to #1 and repeat.
GeneralHankerchief
04-23-2008, 23:28
Okay, right now my disk drive does in fact seem to be working and I do have access to the save. If nothing changes, I will begin proceedings tomorrow as planned.
You guys have no idea how relieved I am at this moment. :2thumbsup:
Privateerkev
04-24-2008, 05:10
I notice in the Status and Orders Thread, that people are telling the Chancellor what specific units to recruit. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Chancellor can recruit what ever he wishes. The thread is just to tell him what he can not disband or move.
Of course people can "ask" the Chancellor to recruit things but he can ignore that.
Do I have the above correct?
Correct. The SOT (I like that acronym) is as good a place as any for requests, since they need to be given to the Chancellor anyway and the SOT is mainly for the Chancellor's convenience.
GeneralHankerchief
04-24-2008, 12:09
Just a heads-up, I will be unfreezing the save this afternoon (GMT -5). Anybody who does not have their preferences up by that time will be ignored. Thanks.
Cecil XIX
04-25-2008, 00:57
By the way, GH. I can't speak for everybody, but I hope you don't hold anything back as Chancellor. This is just a ten-turn Civil War, and it's important for us to see the full power of a biased Chancellor for our analysis.
GeneralHankerchief
04-25-2008, 01:19
I have a plan, don't worry.
Privateerkev
04-25-2008, 04:17
By the way, GH. I can't speak for everybody, but I hope you don't hold anything back as Chancellor. This is just a ten-turn Civil War, and it's important for us to see the full power of a biased Chancellor for our analysis.
You were worried he would hold back? :laugh4:
And don't worry, he'll have some help... :beam:
Privateerkev
04-25-2008, 17:06
How often does the Chancellor have to check the status thread? Once a "term"? Every turn? Somewhere in between?
In KotR, it seemed that you basically had one chance a term to get your orders in. After that, even if settlements were lost or taken, or avatars died, build queues and army orders were up to the whim of the Chancellor.
If you got your build queue and army order in before voting ended, the Chancellor had to obey it. If you turned in late, or tried to give revised orders, it was his discretion.
Are we doing that now? If I edit my status post, can GH ignore it? Or is he bound to follow it? Does this put too much on the Chancellor to have him check it every turn? I have never been Chancellor so I don't have a good grasp as to what is "too much".
GeneralHankerchief
04-25-2008, 21:20
Guys,
I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to drop out. My disk drive has just decided to stop reading on me. It's been like this for a little less than a week now, and while there were some days where it's worked, it hasn't done squat for the past two days. After searching online, it seems like there's nothing I can do but bite the bullet and get a new one.
I've contacted AussieGiant, and, if he is willing, he will step in and take my place as Chancellor. Those of you who know him from KotR know that he is an extremely competant Chancellor.
This is across the board, meaning I've got to drop out of the Hotseats too. I don't know if this will be fixed in time for me to take part in the Successor game.
Again, very sorry guys. Good luck with your trialling.
GH
Privateerkev
04-25-2008, 21:36
That sucks GH. :(
I hope you can get it fixed in time for the Successor game.
Cecil XIX
04-25-2008, 21:58
Sorry to hear that GH. Here's hoping you get back quickly.
Ramses II CP
04-25-2008, 22:26
You'll be missed GH, come back soon.. Hard drive space tends to be fairly cheap these days, but it's all relative when you're in college. I remember agonizing over whether to purchase the corn chips or the bulkier but nastier ramen noodles. :laugh4:
:egypt:
Privateerkev
04-25-2008, 22:33
I remember agonizing over whether to purchase the corn chips or the bulkier but nastier ramen noodles.
I used to purchase all of my Ramen once a month on 10-cent Ramen day. I would bring a 10-dollar bill, fill the cart up with a hundred packs, and then roll it up to a horrified cashier. :laugh4:
That's too bad, GH. I'll miss you here and in the hotseats. Hope you make it back soon. ~:(
The Lemongate
04-26-2008, 00:08
On a related note, what about the chancellor thread? Is it still up and should I still go grab that save and kick Frankfurt over?
GeneralHankerchief
04-26-2008, 00:09
Thanks for the support guys.
Zim: I'll still be around, just not able to play.
Lemongate: I think you'll be okay to take Frankfurt.
AussieGiant
04-26-2008, 01:23
Oh boy...I need a moment to think about this.
GH thanks for the vote of confidence.
Can I get back to you all tomorrow?
deguerra
04-26-2008, 03:06
sure AG, take your time :2thumbsup:
gibsonsg91921
04-26-2008, 21:00
Yikes GH, you were such a big part of KOTR and the set-up of this game. You'll be missed greatly.
GeneralHankerchief
04-27-2008, 23:21
Just an update, OverKnight is going to take over as Louis and TinCow is going to take OK's former role. It should probably get started (finally) tomorrow.
OverKnight
04-28-2008, 01:32
I'll be reviewing the threads and the rules, and I'll take a look at the save after work.
We should see some forward progress, though I ask for patience since the rules are new to me as well.
If you have been plotting with GH, unfotunately we're back to a blank slate.
OverKnight
04-28-2008, 04:45
Play will continue once I get home from work. Since we have had a rather extended window for "free play", I will take possession of the save once I'm home in ~9 hours.
If you're going to do anything with the save, do it now.
If you're going to update in the SOT regarding orders, build queues and such, do it now. Once I take the save, I will proceed with the information there at that time.
We will make our way through the test game as expeditiously as possible, iron out the rules and then proceed to the real fun, the full blown KotR successor game.
So say we all.
Edit: I just realized I have a three hour training on top of my usual shift. Which means it'll take a bit longer for me to start.
OverKnight
04-28-2008, 17:38
Sorry for the triple (!) post, but that three hour training after work turned into five hours and change. I have to be back at work in 10 hours, which means play will be delayed until Tuesday morning EST.
My apologies, but RL has interfered and I want to be clear headed and unrushed when I try to implement this new system. On a positive note, I am caught up on Louis's correspondence and the rules. Once I can get some quality game time, things should go smoothly.
Again, my regrets.
Not a problem. There's plenty of stuff still to be ironed out with the rules and many of us are still decompressing from KOTR. The Test Game won't take long once it gets rolling anyway, so a delay at the start isn't a big deal.
I was asked to comment on this post:
How often does the Chancellor have to check the status thread? Once a "term"? Every turn? Somewhere in between?
In KotR, it seemed that you basically had one chance a term to get your orders in. After that, even if settlements were lost or taken, or avatars died, build queues and army orders were up to the whim of the Chancellor.
If you got your build queue and army order in before voting ended, the Chancellor had to obey it. If you turned in late, or tried to give revised orders, it was his discretion.
Are we doing that now? If I edit my status post, can GH ignore it? Or is he bound to follow it? Does this put too much on the Chancellor to have him check it every turn? I have never been Chancellor so I don't have a good grasp as to what is "too much".
I hadn't thought about the timing of build queues and whatnot. Since players can legally change their orders about their army/garrison composition at any time, I assumed the Chancellor would be checking at the start of every turn. A quick scan could show whether anyone had edited their post since the previous turn, so that wouldn't be too onerous a duty. If the Chancellor is thus checking every turn, I see no reason that the other stuff, like build queues, couldn't be changed at any time as well. It might be a good idea to PM the Chancellor if you do, though, to make sure he notices.
If this stuff turns out to be too much of a burden on the player who is the Chancellor, we can tone it down later. That's part of what I want to examine with the test game.
OverKnight
04-29-2008, 15:36
I am assuming that if PK and Ignoramus wish to turn the civil war hot, they would have to besiege Dijon during 1146 (the current turn) before assaulting in 1148. If this is the case, we might have our first PvP (well really PvAI of same faction) battle in that year.
Is this true?
Privateerkev
04-29-2008, 15:40
I am assuming that if PK and Ignoramus wish to turn the civil war hot, they would have to besiege Dijon during 1146 (the current turn) before assaulting in 1148. If this is the case, we might have our first PvP (well really PvAI of same faction) battle in that year.
Is this true?
Ig has a ballista...
^_^
OverKnight
04-29-2008, 15:50
Ah. . .I'll have to remember to study the compostion of our own armies.
So, we have the possibility of a France vs France battle. Since one side would be AI led, how do we handle this?
I'm assuming, since it's player vs AI, either Ignoramus or PK will fight a custom battle reflecting the two armies, including walls, and then show a screen shot of the casualties? It would then be up to me to deduct those losses. First, in the Swabian Civil war, how were units removed? Second, I'm not sure how to implement damage to the town, i.e. holes in the wall and damaged buildings.
Privateerkev
04-29-2008, 15:52
A Ballista will have trouble knocking down walls. We'll just blast the gate open. So you won't have to worry about repairing damage.
All PvP battles in the Test Game are AI Battles for speed and efficiency. That should be taken into consideration in any decision on whether to attack or whether to build siege equipment.
If they are capable of assaulting this turn (by any means other than spies) they can do so. Since I'm taking care of the PvP battles for the Test Game via the AI Battle system, anyone who wants to initiate one should do the following:
1) Move their army adjacent to an enemy stack (or city) in accordance with the rules.
2) Send me a PM telling me they want to attack and initiate a PvP battle.
I will then resolve it by the AI Battle sytem and edit upload a new saved game that reflects the results. Unfortunately, I won't be home from work until late tonight, though, so I cannot resolve any battle in this format until tomorrow night. I don't imagine this will make a difference, though, as this turn they would be assaulting garrisons that cannot be moved or reinforced (I think) by other players. If I am wrong about that, let me know.
Ituralde
04-29-2008, 19:38
This brings me to another question. Although I'm not playing this should come up pretty soon. How is sieging as such handled? I mean once the enemy army is in front of Dijon it should be besieged, right? Meaning its garrison should loose troops, it can not be reinforced from the outside, and it can't train any soldiers or build any buildings. How much of these things will be taken into account when a city is besieged in a Civil War?
A PvP siege falls under the rules of a PvP battle: thus, it's up the umpire of the battle. If the umpire is me, this is how I would do it (and am doing it during the Test Game):
Attacks can be made at any time, as long as the attacking army has seige engines of some kind, either artillery or the typical ladders/rams/towers type. I will not allow spies to open gates in PvP, however I will allow betrayals like deguerra had planned at Staufen during the Cataclysm. Every turn that the besieging army remains next to the besieged city, I will allow it to use the same number of build points that it would get by besieging an AI faction city. Those build points can be turned into ladders/rams/towers in exactly the same manner. If the besieger decides to attack, they will have access to whatever siege engines they have built and whatever artillery they have brought with them.
For instance, Ignoramus could attack Dijon immediately because he has a ballista which could open a way into the city. If he attacked right now, he would have to rely exclusively on the ballista to get inside. If he waited a turn, he could build a few ladders, etc. to go along with the ballista.
I will ignore attrition because it would be a pain in the butt and TW-style garrison attrition is absurd anyway. Historically, besieging armies almost always took more losses due to attrition than besieged armies due to their much large size and lack of access to the stockpiles inside the city/castle.
Cecil XIX
04-29-2008, 20:02
I will ignore attrition because it would be a pain in the butt and TW-style garrison attrition is absurd anyway. Historically, besieging armies almost always took more losses due to attrition than besieged armies due to their much large size and lack of access to the stockpiles inside the city/castle.
Ah, I miss MTW. At least in that game you couldn't lay siege to a settlement for a theoretically infinite amount of time.
Privateerkev
04-29-2008, 22:10
Please clear your PM inbox Ig!
No PBM is complete without someone telling Ignoramus to clear his inbox. This time, I guess I have the dubious honor. :clown:
Ignoramus
04-29-2008, 23:25
Sorry PK. Inbox cleared.
The Lemongate
04-30-2008, 03:01
Question: can I take these guys in Dijon (my city) and add them to King Philip's army since it is in range? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes and then Philip can do with them as he pleases.
I believe Dijon isn't considered under siege this turn, otherwise I'd guess the answer would theoretically be no...?
Ah and watch those taxes in Frankfurt, the status and order thread says : Low, not Normal :clown:
Ramses II CP
04-30-2008, 04:13
Before we do anything in game plot the nearest point to Dijon along Philip's path to the Staufen region so he doesn't waste a chunk of movement.
Actually just let me know for sure that it's a fair move, and I'll snag the save and do it myself. :beam:
:egypt:
Privateerkev
04-30-2008, 04:43
Question: can I take these guys in Dijon (my city) and add them to King Philip's army since it is in range? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes and then Philip can do with them as he pleases.
I believe Dijon isn't considered under siege this turn, otherwise I'd guess the answer would theoretically be no...?
Ah and watch those taxes in Frankfurt, the status and order thread says : Low, not Normal :clown:
Here is the rule governing that:
1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.
So I'm pretty sure you can. :yes:
*edit*
and no, Dijon is not under siege. Though if it is attacked this turn, TC might want to rule on whether those men make it out in time...
The Lemongate
04-30-2008, 04:55
Yeah it was more the fact that I wanted to pack them into another noble's army. Not that I'd think of any reason someone wouldn't want more troops :inquisitive:
OverKnight
04-30-2008, 05:04
Unless an extension is requested, I will be taking back the save after the 24 hours.
While I can go ahead and do Chancellor moves and such, the game won't be able to proceed to 1148 until the assault on Dijon is resolved. Technically, we could end turn to start 1148, and mod in the losses once the battle was completed, but we wouldn't be able to open up the 1148 save until that had been done.
Privateerkev
04-30-2008, 05:13
Yeah it was more the fact that I wanted to pack them into another noble's army. Not that I'd think of any reason someone wouldn't want more troops :inquisitive:
I'm pretty sure you can move troops from your garrison into an ally's army.
What I don't know is, if those men will be intercepted. It's one of those things we need to figure out in the civil war rules.
While we allow 24 hour free time to play with the save, I don't know if we try to figure out "interceptions".
But, "interceptions" aren't exactly in the rules so maybe you could just go and move the men and we'll figure it out next time.
You are all 100% accurate in your interpretation of the rules. Any of the units in Dijon can be moved to any location, including someone else's army. Whether they remain there after next turn depends on the orders given for the army they end up in and the Chancellor's whims (if they are not covered by the orders).
I will resolve the assault on Dijon tonight EST and post the new save at that time.
Ramses II CP
04-30-2008, 14:40
So Lemon, do you want to do the move or shall I? I can do it, but drop me a line with exactly which units you want removed if it isn't the whole garrison. :beam:
:egypt:
If the entire garrison is removed, there is no need for an AI battle. The city will simply be conquered without a fight.
The Lemongate
04-30-2008, 16:20
Take the entire garrison Ramses. They wouldn't hold for a second in a fight anyways.
Ramses II CP
04-30-2008, 17:06
You know we do have another option. I could move King Philip's army into Dijon. I suppose the question then would be which action took place first. Obviously the garrison can flee before the siege starts, but can Philip move his army into the city before hand? How close are the two forces relative to Dijon? Should we roll dice for it?
Would the siege even go forward if King Philip moved into the city?
So many questions to be answered. This being a test game, maybe that's what I should do without regard to IC matters...
:egypt:
Privateerkev
04-30-2008, 17:12
You know we do have another option. I could move King Philip's army into Dijon. I suppose the question then would be which action took place first. Obviously the garrison can flee before the siege starts, but can Philip move his army into the city before hand? How close are the two forces relative to Dijon? Should we roll dice for it?
Would the siege even go forward if King Philip moved into the city?
So many questions to be answered. This being a test game, maybe that's what I should do without regard to IC matters...
:egypt:
Well, Ig and I are already next door to Dijon. We didn't attack last turn because of the civil war rules forbidding first turn attacks by the declarer. So we just parked right next to the city.
And, with Ig's ballista, we're not going to siege, but simply storm in. If you want to see if you can make it into Dijon in time, just ask TC and maybe he'll set up an AI vs AI battle of you versus Ig. Also, with me just to Ig's north, I would ask if I intercepted you beforehand. Then there might be a AI vs AI battle for you vs me.
I'm glad we're doing the test game because we've already found some holes in the rules. :2thumbsup:
Ramses II CP
04-30-2008, 17:26
...and that's what I get for not looking at the save first. Okay, I'll snag the save and pull Dijon's garrison.
Still, it's an interesting question. What would happen if a technically neutral character moved into a city that was under threat of assault. I suppose it would be handled entirely IC via negotiation, but if those broke down and the assault went forward would it represent a new civil war against the third party?
edit for clarity: Taking the save.
:egypt:
Since the city is kind of surrounded, I will give the besiegers the option of trying to intercept the garrison as it leaves, if they want to. If they succeed (die roll) I would start an AI battle in the field. Of course, this might piss off the King, since they garrison are bound for his army and he's still technically neutral. The reason for this is that the attack was ordered well before the garrison was evacuated. If I had the time this morning, I could have done the assault right then. The besiegers should not be penalized for my own slowness. Plus, it makes sense.
If anyone thinks this goes beyond the powers of the umpire of the Battle of Dijon, let me know. I'm doing this purely as the umpire of the battle, not as the supervisor of the entire Test Game. Is this the kind of leeway we want to allow for all battle umpires?
Ramses II CP
04-30-2008, 18:03
Yep, it would be fine with me either way, I just might have to edit some posts. :embarassed:
:egypt:
Privateerkev
04-30-2008, 18:25
Since the city is kind of surrounded, I will give the besiegers the option of trying to intercept the garrison as it leaves, if they want to. If they succeed (die roll) I would start an AI battle in the field. Of course, this might piss off the King, since they garrison are bound for his army and he's still technically neutral. The reason for this is that the attack was ordered well before the garrison was evacuated. If I had the time this morning, I could have done the assault right then. The besiegers should not be penalized for my own slowness. Plus, it makes sense.
If anyone thinks this goes beyond the powers of the umpire of the Battle of Dijon, let me know. I'm doing this purely as the umpire of the battle, not as the supervisor of the entire Test Game. Is this the kind of leeway we want to allow for all battle umpires?
I'd be fine either way.
On one hand, it makes sense to be able to intercept a unit you've been standing next to.
On the other, "interceptions" aren't in the rules so maybe we should do without it and discuss putting it in the rules for next time.
Either way, I don't want to make a rule about it. It's more of a question of how much leeway we're going to give the umpire of a battle.
Privateerkev
04-30-2008, 18:36
Either way, I don't want to make a rule about it. It's more of a question of how much leeway we're going to give the umpire of a battle.
Ok, that makes it simpler. Then yes, I think the umpire should have the leeway to decide these things. You and Econ have done stuff like this many times and I have no problem deferring to your judgment on this.
As for which way the umpire decides, I don't care. But if I am allowed to intercept the garrison, I will take the opportunity.
(can I ask for them to surrender and add them to my army?) :beam:
You can ask. They will refuse.
Privateerkev
04-30-2008, 18:43
You can ask. They will refuse.
Then I'll just hack them all up into little militia chunks...
Let me know how the die roll goes. :D
The garrison would escape on a 5 or 6. I rolled a 4.
The battle has been played and posted. I have to say, I very much like this method. It is extremely easy to implement. It took me about 20 minutes to download the save, check the composition of the two armies, set up the custom battle, play the custom battle, upload the save and replay, and write the battle report. That is absurdly fast and it couldn't have been simpler IMO.
I also like the fact that doing it this way allows me to save a battle replay which everyone else can then view. Sure, this battle wasn't exactly a show-stopper, but I like the idea of everyone being able to see exactly what happened.
So far, the AI Battle option gets two big thumbs up from me. :2thumbsup:
Ramses II CP
05-01-2008, 00:28
Replays generally don't work in my experience. :no:
:egypt:
Hmph... Can someone try the one I uploaded and see if it works?
ETW had better fix the whole battle recordings thing, especially the ability to record SP campaign battles. That's one of the features I miss the most from MTW.
Ignoramus
05-01-2008, 03:25
In MTW one replay I had recorded showed my forces losing the battle when I actually won it. Hopefully it works better in MTW2.
OverKnight
05-01-2008, 03:50
I'm extending the free move period so everyone can react to the battle.
If anyone, particularly the combatants in the Civil War, want to move their armies post-battle, post or pm orders or do it yourself.
Remember without orders the Chancellor decides.
Ramses II CP
05-01-2008, 04:45
I'll try the replay tomorrow sometime. I tried to get replays to work for a general cam AAR I had planned, and even on the same machine, with no mods, vanilla 1.2, only one in four or five of my replays would show a result that was even close to the actual result. The smaller the battle, the more likely it was to work. Not a single battle with a full stack or more of troops worked correctly. :wall:
These were from the solo campaign, however, so it's possible that they work a little better in custom battles.
:egypt:
How did you make replays of single player campaign battles? I thought that was impossible.
Ramses II CP
05-01-2008, 13:31
You have to copy the default named 'battle.rpy' from C:\Program Files\SEGA\Medieval II Total War\temp into the replay folder and rename it. I think there's a console command you can use at the end of the battle to save it with a different name but I've lost my link to that.
edit: Your replay came out correctly for me, I think. 8 losses for France, 172 survivors for England. Looked like most of the losses were to friendly fire in the retreat from the charge. My last two saved replays from the campaign failed though. I wonder if file size has something to do with it; my campaign replays were 900k and 1900k while yours is 50k.
:egypt:
Have you tried just viewing Custom Battle replays? It could simply be an error in single player campaign replays, which would be why CA disabled them in the first place.
In any case, I'll keep posting replays until it becomes obvious that they are unreliable. If people load them up, they can be helpful for writing battle reports, stories, etc.
Ramses II CP
05-01-2008, 14:16
Yeah, I just ran a large scale custom battle with around 4k troops on the field. Drew it out for awhile, ran a couple of cavalry charges, and then cleaned up. Fire up the replay and it's wildly different, although file size isn't that much larger than yours. My side still won, but half my cavalry routed and then whole companies on both sides started just standing around doing nothing.
I suspect anything around half a stack of total troops is going to work okay, especially if the battle is over quickly, but if things drag on and get intricate the replay system will just fail. There are some old Citdadel threads about it with Sinan's attempts to get custom replays to work consistently under 1.2.
:egypt:
I'll make sure I take screenshots and good notes of any important battles then.
OverKnight
05-01-2008, 18:36
I'm gearing up to take the save, Saints preserve me from lag.
Just to reiterate, if you make a change in your SOT post, send me a PM. I printed out the SOT thread to doublecheck while playing, and knowing if any changes have been made would make things go more smoothly.
I'm trying to be thorough, but the amount of outside info I have to integrate into game play has increased since my last KotR term. Knowing when a change has occured would be a great help.
Thanks.
Edit: Also, please zip or rar the save file before uploading, otherwise the uploader might not accept it. Refer to the PBM FAQ, stickied in the Throne Room, for assistance.
Privateerkev
05-01-2008, 20:03
Here is a civil war rules question.
The way I understand it, a civil war is between one feudal chain and another. So, if a third party, like the Chancellor and/or King want to get involved, do they need to make a seperate declaration of war? And if so, do they need to wait one turn before taking offensive action?
Also, if a neutral party is in possession of army units from a feudal chain that is at war, is that person still neutral? If not, is there a limit as to how many forces they can have from a party at war? Right now, the King has one Anjou unit in his army. But what if the neutral King was at the head of a whole Anjou private army? When are you no longer neutral?
:book:
The way I understand it, a civil war is between one feudal chain and another. So, if a third party, like the Chancellor and/or King want to get involved, do they need to make a seperate declaration of war? And if so, do they need to wait one turn before taking offensive action?
Yes and Yes. If you want a larger impact at the start of the war, you should have all hostile parties declare war at the same time against the same target, or even multiple targets, as befits their objectives. The idea behind the waiting period is exclusively to prevent OOC difficulties. We want to give people a chance to save themselves before being crushed, thus surprise attacks need to be toned down a bit to allow people at least a chance to surrender before they are annihilated.
Also, if a neutral party is in possession of army units from a feudal chain that is at war, is that person still neutral? If not, is there a limit as to how many forces they can have from a party at war? Right now, the King has one Anjou unit in his army. But what if the neutral King was at the head of a whole Anjou private army? When are you no longer neutral?
It doesn't matter at all where the units come from, they are essentially the same status as the person who commands them. The Anjou unit that is now with King Philip is for all essential purposes the King's unit for as long as he wants to keep it. He could give it back later, but that's up to him, not anyone in Anjou. Since they can't control that unit directly anymore, there is no reason it should be considered as involved in the war.
This applies equally to an entire Private/Royal Army. The ability to attack another player depends on the avatar, not the army. Thus, a Private/Royal Army that belongs to a player who is involved in a Civil War will still be considered neutral if it is commanded by a player that is not involved in the Civil War. So long as that player remains neutral and in command of the army, the army cannot be used in PvP. Thus it also cannot be attacked. The instant the neutral commander declares war, or is removed from command, then the army becomes fair game for attack.
This does allow for some interesting scenarios for neutrals. In the current game, King Philip could easily ferry troops around for Anjou, or even give them many units from his own army to aid them in their fight, without breaking his own neutrality. If you don't like what he's doing, there's a simple solution: declare war on King Philip and squash him. Problem solved. If you're not willing to do that, then you're simply going to have to deal with having a neutral indirectly aiding your enemy. Very much like the US aiding the UK and USSR between 1939 and 1941. Technical neutrality, while actively aiding one side in a non-combat manner.
Remember, because you can declare war on anyone you want at any time you want, you always have at least one solution to your problems. The question is simply whether that is a solution you want to use, or whether you can solve the problem in some other way.
Ramses II CP
05-01-2008, 22:19
You ratted me out TC, I am just about to transfer some units to Anjou's leadership. The only question is how many and how to manage it IC.
I've only got a few minutes now, but I need to refresh myself on the size rules for private/royal armies and such. If I transfer units over and above the size of the Marquess' private army does he have to 'sieze' them to prevent the Chancellor disbanding/moving them, or are they automatically completely his?
:egypt:
Anything above the minimum can be disbanded or removed unless the recipient gives orders otherwise. In this situation, the best thing to do is simply say "No units may be removed or disbanded from the army." Thus, no matter what is added to it, it will all remain intact. If you're giving them to The Lemongate, his orders for his private army already say just that, so he doesn't have to change anything to keep control of them permanently.
Privateerkev
05-01-2008, 23:38
Please clear your PM inbox again Ignoramus. :smash:
:clown:
Ignoramus
05-01-2008, 23:40
Apologies. It's free now.
AussieGiant
05-02-2008, 09:50
Apologies. It's free now.
Jesus Igno, just how many PM's do you get on a daily basis? :balloon2:
OverKnight
05-02-2008, 21:27
The newest Chancellor's report is up:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1909216&postcount=16
I'm glad we're steaming ahead now. People should get used to the 24 hour window... or at least inform the Chancellor if they're going to need more time.
AussieGiant
05-03-2008, 14:32
I'm not totally aware of the Forum history of "the new guy's" in this Test game...KotR is my only reference point so my apologies in advance.
It seems things are going ahead very well, and the "new guy's" are seamlessly picking up the processes which is great to see.
It does seem as if the old timers are playing nicely together :beam:
Well done fella's and have a nice weekend.
Privateerkev
05-03-2008, 14:44
I'm not totally aware of the Forum history of "the new guy's" in this Test game...KotR is my only reference point so my apologies in advance.
It seems things are going ahead very well, and the "new guy's" are seamlessly picking up the processes which is great to see.
It does seem as if the old timers are playing nicely together :beam:
Well done fella's and have a nice weekend.
My in-game experience is limited to The Lemongate and PrinceofTroy but I agree with you about the "new guys".
Even though he is the only "new guy" in a House with 3 other KotR veterans, PoT has done quite well making himself part of the "team". :yes:
TLG, despite being "new", has created a thoroughly enjoyable and challening opponent for Guillemot to interact with. :bow:
A lot of Poitevin's and Guillemot's amusing correspondence is through letters. I've considered releasing them when the game is over but they would need some vigorous... scrubbing before they would be allowed to see the light of day. :clown:
AussieGiant
05-03-2008, 14:49
Good to hear PK. I certainly got the impression there is a lot going on behind the scene's with PoT and TLG.
Privateerkev
05-03-2008, 14:57
Good to hear PK. I certainly got the impression there is a lot going on behind the scene's with PoT and TLG.
A lot happens with PM's. Because the game is just a short test, there are no "House threads" to interact in. And you can only make so many snarky posts in the Court thread. So, some of us write a lot of PM's. :D
Ramses II CP
05-03-2008, 18:41
Okay, to detail my latest scheme, I've taken most of the garrison of Staufen and escorted them across the very bridge held by Guillemot, which I presume is okay given that I'm neutral, and immediately surrendered them into the command of Tristan's avatar, who is not neutral and is directly behind PK.
I can imagine a number of ways that this bends the rules, not the least of which is the mechanical fact that I had to swap space with some of PK's men to get across the bridge, but what I'd like to discuss is more rules based.
Consider it a given that Lemongate is going to attack PK this turn. Can I transfer control of neutral soldiers to a participant in a civil war on the same turn that they'll be fighting in that civil war (It's worth noting that Louis has done this as well). What, other than the mechanics of the situation, could've stopped me from crossing the bridge?
I suppose it also raises some question of the order of events, but I'm assuming we just go with whomever got to the save first.
Comments?
:egypt:
The Lemongate
05-03-2008, 18:43
I'm really just waiting for this to be okay'd before I have a go at it.
Consider it a given that Lemongate is going to attack PK this turn. Can I transfer control of neutral soldiers to a participant in a civil war on the same turn that they'll be fighting in that civil war (It's worth noting that Louis has done this as well). What, other than the mechanics of the situation, could've stopped me from crossing the bridge?
Yes you can transfer control. Like I said before, your neutrality applies to every unit in your stack. When they enter the stack of someone involved in a Civil War, they become legit targets. You can shuffle forces back and forth all you want. It may be annoying for Gascony, but they always have the option of declaring war on you as well to stop it.
You could've been stopped from crossing the bridge if Gascony declared war against you. Then any crossing of the bridge would have involved two hostile armies moving adjacent to each other, thus resulting in a battle before the game could continue.
I suppose it also raises some question of the order of events, but I'm assuming we just go with whomever got to the save first.
Battles start when two hostile armies move into adjacent squares, with the un-written rule that I also have to be informed of it. When this occurs, it would be best to specifically note in the Chancellor's thread that a battle is about to occur and that no one else should alter the save until it is done.
Privateerkev
05-04-2008, 07:50
Interesting...
I was going to have Ig move to Guillemot's southwest corner to block that very move by Bohemond. OK can confirm that was my order for Richart and he was going to do it when he took the save back.
I guess my question is, how much of these things happen in "real time"?
If Ig happened to be online, took the save, and made that move, Guillemot would be fine right now. But he didn't, so the Chancellor was going to do it, but it seems to not be good enough to save Guillemot.
In KotR, we would have someone know all of the characters moves in a civil war. And that person would decide when people would meet and under what circumstances.
Now, we have the players determining the circumstances because it is based on who happens to grab the save and in what order.
If I kept my move until later, or just gave OK the order to do it during his turn, Guillemot would not be in this position. But I did it first so now everyone has a chance to react to me solely on the basis of the OOC world. In the game, everyone would be making these moves simultaneously.
It's a good thing we're doing this as a test because in a real game, I would feel blindsided right now. :yes:
I can see why having players make their own moves in a civil war would simplify things. But I feel that letting the real life factor of when someone grabs a save game dictate how a PvP battle goes is problematic. I rather see a OOC referee receive all of the movement orders from all participants in a civil war. And then he would calculate who would run into who and where. This seemed to work great in the Swabian Civil War.
Now, the rules are what they are and now is certainly not the time to change them. Guillemot will get what he very much deserves. But I do hope we seriously consider overhauling the Civil War rules for the real game. Letting the players download the savegame, move their avatar up to their opponent, and attack him right then and there is certainly simpler, but I find it to be far less realistic.
Now I realize this post probably seems far more serious than I mean it. I assure you it isn't. I'm just very tired. I am serious about us changing the civil war system to include an OOC referee that receives the orders and then implements them like Econ used to do. But I am not very serious about the test game. It is certainly serving it's purpose though which is a good thing.
:clown: <--- obligatory less-than-serious smiley that we all seem to be adding to our posts in an attempt to add levity and friendliness to our cold hard medium of internet text.
:beam:
AussieGiant
05-04-2008, 08:47
Yes it seems that now as we get into the nitty gritty of the civil war the timing of the moves becomes extremely important.
I remember playing RPG's and table top games in which the movement happened in a linear fashion but all firing occurred simultaneously.
This was very important for personal firer fighting games such as "Traveler" or WWI or WWII table top games.
Other ideas include an "initiative" role, a rule that was not used very often in AD&D but hugely important in determining who moves and fires first. Or a built in "concept" like. 'All movement is considered to be simultaneous in a given turn'.
Am I on drugs or does this sound like it could be useful. :beam:
PK, Tincow did mention this aspect of the PVP rules in the commentary to rules, so I suppose it's WAD. It certainly seems unfair on the surface, but I'm interested in what Tincow has to say about it. :yes:
The “even if the armies have movement points remaining” gives a way for players to intercept one another. If you want to chase down an enemy who is fleeing, grab the save before he does. If you expect to be attacked, you could grab the save first and either move yourself out of range of the enemy or to a safer place, such as a settlement or bridge.
AussieGiant
05-04-2008, 08:59
Given TC's rules, then that is more than enough to go on IC when handling the situation.
On a side note, whatever happens it's interesting to see the test game really start to heat up, with some real battles imminent. :2thumbsup:
Heating up for some. The rest of the House of Anjou would have to be defeated before I could see any conflict, not that I'm complaining. Me and my 3 militia units don't make much of an army.
There's no doubt some of us have duller roles in the war than others. I'm in a neutral House and have about 2-3 militia units myself. Were I to get into a battle I doubt my "army" would last long. :clown:
I still think it's nice to see something decisive might actually happen. :yes:
Heating up for some. The rest of the House of Anjou would have to be defeated before I could see any conflict, not that I'm complaining. Me and my 3 militia units don't make much of an army.
Ramses II CP
05-04-2008, 14:12
Well, just so everyone knows, I made an effort at the very start of the game to get everyone but Albion involved in the fighting, but I have a feeling it failed due to lack of interest or maybe understanding of the rules. EF's character, who has 'underhanded' and 'disloyal' got an offer to start his own house using Marsellies and Ajaccio if he would take his men from Rennes and march on Bordeaux. There was some question about how this would work under the rules, which is the whole reason why I proposed it.
I tried to get something going with my son at Zaragosa too, but Deguerra made a reasonable case why it didn't seem IC. :shrug:
With no ships of their own, Albion is rather f'd. I suppose they could start a war with the Scottish. :laugh4:
I tend to agree with PK about the opportunism of who grabs the save first deciding the Civil War. I encouraged the moves I did solely to test the rule base, which does feel a bit as if it's straining. Here's my suggestion:
With the permission of their vassal, and only during a civil war, a Lord may move his vassal's avatar and army.
This will not eliminate the point of order issues, as the first person to the save still has a substantial advantage, but it will prevent 'mid turn' combats from causing the kind of oddity we're seeing with PK, Tristan, Lemongate, and Igno.
Oh, and I guess the real lesson is, don't ally with Igno. :laugh4:
edit: Also, for my part, I'm perfectly willing to roll back these moves and try the turn again with a more coordinated approach.
:egypt:
I am not particularly attached to the timing rule as I originally wrote it. It just seemed like the most efficient method at the time. If it is causing problems, then we should change it. A single neutral 'GM' would work, but Civil Wars could be very large and last for a long time. This would thrust a lot of work onto a single person. I think it's best to try and keep the burden on any individual as low as possible, which means distributing the responsibilities out to the general player base.
I like Ramses' proposal, though I would extend it to even more people. This is really an OOC rule, so we might as well treat it as such. It's possible that a person's Lord might be inactive or otherwise unable to make the moves. Same with limiting it to people in the same feudal chain. I say we just let anyone do it, with permission of course.
Any player involved in a Civil War may give permission for another player to move their avatar and armies.
Privateerkev
05-04-2008, 15:20
PK, Tincow did mention this aspect of the PVP rules in the commentary to rules, so I suppose it's WAD. It certainly seems unfair on the surface, but I'm interested in what Tincow has to say about it. :yes:
Your absolutely right. My issue is not with any of the people. It is with the rule itself. The rule is quite clear in my opinion. I just think we should consider changing the rule for the "real" game. :yes:
Oh, and I guess the real lesson is, don't ally with Igno. :laugh4:
Ig has played a great ally to Guillemot. He gets his orders in within the 24 hour window. He has been playing a very loyal character. (and if he doesn't get his orders in within the window, I just have OK move him anyways. :2thumbsup: )
Richart has done everything that was expected of him. This is more of an OOC matter because it has to do with who physically grabs a save file before someone else.
edit: Also, for my part, I'm perfectly willing to roll back these moves and try the turn again with a more coordinated approach.
I am very much against this. Ramses, TLG, and Tristan played completely within the rules. Their strategy and plan was masterfully coordinated and implemented. :bow:
Also, the rules were quite clear. I say we let the chips fall where they may. I just want us to discuss possible changes for the "real" game. If this kind of thing happened to characters that players put a lot of time into, and actually cared about, it might cause some OOC hurt feelings.
But this is just a "test" game. And this is exactly the kind of thing we wanted to discover. I was actually a little worried earlier that we wouldn't find out anything really useful. Oh how wrong I was... ^_^
I am not particularly attached to the timing rule as I originally wrote it. It just seemed like the most efficient method at the time. If it is causing problems, then we should change it. A single neutral 'GM' would work, but Civil Wars could be very large and last for a long time. This would thrust a lot of work onto a single person. I think it's best to try and keep the burden on any individual as low as possible, which means distributing the responsibilities out to the general player base.
I like Ramses' proposal, though I would extend it to even more people. This is really an OOC rule, so we might as well treat it as such. It's possible that a person's Lord might be inactive or otherwise unable to make the moves. Same with limiting it to people in the same feudal chain. I say we just let anyone do it, with permission of course.
Any player involved in a Civil War may give permission for another player to move their avatar and armies.
I would still like an OOC referee to be implemented in the "real" game but I can see how that could get burdensome. Allowing anyone to move your forces in a civil war is very interesting but I have some concerns.
a.) Maybe we should consider having players post in the SOT who they allow to move their avatar. I can see confusion erupt if someone mis-reads a PM and thinks he can move an avatar when the owner of the avatar thought he never gave permission. If we keep it public, it should prevent this. (or at least minimize it.)
b.) I think it should be limited to only civil wars. If we allow this in "normal" play, players will have far less of an incentive to be active. And it would allow some players to effectively control multiple avatars. I think we should consider limiting it to people who are in a feudal chain that is at war. I know this would leave out characters like the King and the Chancellor in the "test" game from having people control their avatars and armies, but this seems to be the best way to limit it. Allowing others to control your character and army should be a specific power given only to participants in a civil war. If you want that specific power and benefit, then just have your avatar declare war.
I agree fully with both a and b.
OverKnight
05-04-2008, 17:51
How about if civil war battles take place at the end of the turn? That way all armies can reach the site of battle, IE Richart can move up.
As Chancellor I'm a bit hamstrung as I can only move stacks after everyone else has moved in the 24 hour window. Igno has given me orders for movement, but I can't implement those until the free move is over.
Another thing to consider would be to give each side in a civil war initiative. The turn after the civil war is declared, when blood can be spilt, the declaring house would move first. The turn after that the defending house would move first. First move would alternate back and forth. This has the benefit of being easy to track.
OverKnight
05-04-2008, 23:40
So, should I proceed with the save or are we having a PvP battle?
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 00:43
I feel bad that our 24 hour turn marathon got de-railed. At the risk of de-railing it further, I feel we should still play out the PvP battle this turn. As far as I can tell, the game is effectively "frozen" because a battle has been declared. If we want to change the PvP rules, I think we shouldn't change them until next turn. That way, no one is penalized this turn for following the rules.
I rather not change the rules at all during the test game. But, it is a "test" game so perhaps changing them is in order so we can... test new rules. ^_^
That's where I sit with all of this. I say we keep the rules as is for the test game, play out the PvP first, then let people finish their moves, then move on to the next turn. We seem to have a good compromise for the "real" game so I am quite happy about that.
I agree with PK. Unfortunately, I'm too tired to run it tonight, so it'll have to wait until I get home from work tomorrow. Expect the battle to be done and posted early evening tomorrow EST.
Was able to get the battle done sooner than expected. This replay is for a much, much larger battle, so I'm curious to see if it screws up. If replays turn out to be almost completely useless, another option would be for me to record a video of the battle in FRAPS and post that for viewing.
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 14:41
Ah I just had fun responding to that IC... :beam:
I must say I'm surprised Guillemot did so well in the battle. I thought he would get surrounded and annhilated. I guess those dozen armored spearmen counted for something. :yes:
Ramses II CP
05-05-2008, 14:47
Here's a screenshot of the results screen from my viewing of the battle. It appeared to go more or less as described. :2thumbsup:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/RosDalton/SB8Pa0_IhpI/AAAAAAAAKYo/qceBWtcMLgg/s800/0021.jpg
:egypt:
Those are the exact results I got, so that makes 2 for 2 on the replays.
I must say I'm surprised Guillemot did so well in the battle. I thought he would get surrounded and annhilated. I guess those dozen armored spearmen counted for something. :yes:
It was odd. You were in a less dire situation because I couldn't make a battle to reflect you being attacked from both sides of the bridge. However, since your army crossed over, that advantage seemed to me to be moot, so I was happy letting it play out from there. One of the main problems for Anjou was that the initial cavalry 'charge' wasn't actually a charge. It was more of a trot, and thus no charge bonus was applied. Without the charge impact, they got slaughtered when they hit the line of spearmen which was surprisingly well-formed. Anjou would have fared far better if the large army had moved immediately to the bridgehead. Instead it sat on the hill and watched for a long time, allowing your men to form. Even so, I was surprised with the result. I ran through most of it on 6x speed, so I didn't see exactly what happened, but generally there were just far more Anjou routers.
OverKnight
05-05-2008, 17:16
Rules Question:
According to the Charter, I'm required to replenish the two depleted Royal Armies. The three wrecked Private armies are not required to be replenished because they're in a Civil War.
Now, is this rule one of those Chancellor ignores at his own peril things but which he could ignore, or is it more of an OOC reflection that Kings and Princes would be able to raise troops even without the say so of the IC Chancellor?
If I did reinforce Phillip, I'm assuming I would do so from nearby castles and such? I mean if Loius wanted to be a bastard, he could recruit replacements from Zaragoza for Phillip. If I wanted Louis to be a huge bastard, he'd top off his own Royal Army before Dad's.
I guess I'm having a difficult time finding the OOC/IC line in the sand.
Edit: Another thought, pointed out as I wrote this by PK, a possible interpretation is that since Guillemot declared war on Phillip, Phillip's "army" is involved in a Civil War and therefore does not need to be reinforced. Particularly since his units were lost when they voluntarily fought in a Civil War battle.
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 17:21
Rules Question:
According to the Charter, I'm required to replenish the two depleted Royal Armies. The three wrecked Private armies are not required to be replenished because they're in a Civil War.
Now, is this rule one of those Chancellor ignores at his own peril things but which he could ignore, or is it more of an OOC reflection that Kings and Princes would be able to raise troops even without the say so of the IC Chancellor?
If I did reinforce Phillip, I'm assuming I would do so from nearby castles and such? I mean if Loius wanted to be a bastard, he could recruit replacements from Zaragoza for Phillip. If I wanted Louis to be a huge bastard, he'd top off his own Royal Army before Dad's.
I guess I'm having a difficult time finding the OOC/IC line in the sand.
Guillemot just declared war on Phillip. So, that Royal Army is now involved in a Civil War :yes:
Ramses II CP
05-05-2008, 17:27
Exactly as you should PK, and now we run into another question. If we're still using the opportunism rule on taking the save, can the Chancellor PM a player and coordinate his taking the save? I figured there was a strong possibility the king would become involved in the war following this battle, though I didn't figure on the AI making such a mess of the bridge fight.
Also am I involved in the Civil war this turn or the next? It'll make a difference to whether or not I get reinforced.
:egypt:
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 17:31
From how I'm reading the rules, the King is now "involved" but can not be attacked by Gascony until next turn. The King can attack though.
I consider the Rules themselves to be binding on the Chancellor, it's only the Edicts that are 'optional.' My original draft had wording that all rules except * marked rules were optional, but I realized that it was then necessary to * almost the entire rule set, since a significant number of them pretty much have to be enforced in order for the game to work properly. So, I simply changed Power 2 to read that "Edicts" require IC enforcement. The rest of the Rules are binding, with the power being that anything not covered by the rules is fair game for the Chancellor.
The situation with Phillip is interesting. Phillip's army dropped below minimum levels prior to the declaration, thus requiring reinforcement. Guillemot then chose a nice time to declare war, thus not requiring reinforcement. I think a good argument can be made either way. However, given that the Chancellor is siding with Gascony, giving Phillip the minimum sized army right now would be more fairly balanced. The troops can be low quality and only meet the minimum requirements, and further reinforcement would not be necessary. That seems like the best IC and OOC compromise in the situation. If you want me to, I will write a rule change that specifically says that Private and Royal armies that are below the minimum level at the start of a Civil War must get a one-off ASAP topping up to at least the bare minimum level.
I'm pleased to see such a decisive battle being fought. There's still some punch left in Anjou, but it'll be interesting to see if the Civil War can be brought to a close before the end of the Test Game. I'm not surprised with the speed of the events. With the rules as they are, Civil Wars will likely always be relatively short affairs that depend on who was able to assemble the most manpower prior to the start of the war.
PK is correct on the involvement. Phillip can attack whoever he wants, but cannot be attacked until next turn.
That raises another point, though. PK made the declaration pretty much at the end of the turn, which makes the whole first turn immunity thing a bit pointless. I think I need to edit the rule to give the attack immunity for the first "full" turn.
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 17:38
The situation with Phillip is interesting. Phillip's army dropped below minimum levels prior to the declaration, thus requiring reinforcement. Guillemot then chose a nice time to declare war, thus not requiring reinforcement. I think a good argument can be made either way. However, given that the Chancellor is siding with Gascony, giving Phillip the minimum sized army right now would be more fairly balanced. The troops can be low quality and only meet the minimum requirements, and further reinforcement would not be necessary. That seems like the best IC and OOC compromise in the situation. If you want me to, I will write a rule change that specifically says that Private and Royal armies that are below the minimum level at the start of a Civil War must get a one-off ASAP topping up to at least the bare minimum level.
A possible work-around by the Chancellor is to simply not recruit anything this turn. If he recruits nothing, he does not have to top off any armies.
4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.
It just occurred to me that there's no need to write a rule for the King's Royal Army situation. It's a rule dispute. That falls under the King's authority to adjudicate. However, the rule dispute deals directly with the King, since it's his army. So, the decision therefore falls to the highest ranking nobleman. That would be Marquess Raoulet Poitevin. I think we all know what his decision will be.
Ramses II CP
05-05-2008, 17:39
I don't see any possibility of Philip winning a battle, so the matter of troops is mostly irrelevant. The question is going to be whether or not I can get him back to Staufen or Bern at the start of next turn before he's attacked. If OK can PM the save to Igno/PK then Philip is already dead or captured. If there has to be a more general sort of post the save and have a free for all for it, there's a slight possibility of Philip escaping.
:egypt:
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 17:41
PK is correct on the involvement. Phillip can attack whoever he wants, but cannot be attacked until next turn.
That raises another point, though. PK made the declaration pretty much at the end of the turn, which makes the whole first turn immunity thing a bit pointless. I think I need to edit the rule to give the attack immunity for the first "full" turn.
The way I saw it, if people can "react" to people's moves in previous save games, then I could "react" by declaring war. If you want, I can hold off until next turn but it just seemed like the proper IC response. :beam:
OK can't just PM the save around, he has to post it publicly.
1.4 – Game Management: At the start of each turn, the CHANCELLOR will post an annual report on the events of the last turn, including a save game file for the new turn. After the annual report is posted, players will have 24 hours to download the save, and make their personal moves. Players can move their avatars, move any army (Private, Royal, or otherwise) their avatar commands, move any military units that start the turn inside a settlement they control (garrison units), move any military units that start the turn inside a fort in a province they control (fort units), and fight any battles against the AI that they are capable of fighting with their avatar’s army. The CHANCELLOR may move any avatar or army that has not been moved in this way as he best sees fit, including moves that result in battles, except that he cannot move a player’s avatar, Private/Royal Army, garrison units, or fort units in any manner that player has expressly prohibited. The CHANCELLOR may extend the time limit beyond 24 hours at his discretion, but all players are encouraged to act as swiftly as possible to keep the game moving.
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 17:43
It just occurred to me that there's no need to write a rule for the King's Royal Army situation. It's a rule dispute. That falls under the King's authority to adjudicate. However, the rule dispute deals directly with the King, since it's his army. So, the decision therefore falls to the highest ranking nobleman. That would be Marquess Raoulet Poitevin. I think we all know what his decision will be.
Is there a rule dispute? The Chancellor can choose not to top off the King's army as long as he does not recruite at all for this turn.
The way I saw it, if people can "react" to people's moves in previous save games, then I could "react" by declaring war. If you want, I can hold off until next turn but it just seemed like the proper IC response. :beam:
No, no, don't hold off. It makes complete sense IC. It's just that the timing essentially nullifies the rule which was specifically written to prevent people from being ambushed before they had a chance to run away or surrender. That was done for OOC purposes to make sure people don't get angry by having no way to save their avatar's life. That's exactly the situation we've got here. King Phillip is at risk of death by being caught in a vulnerable spot and attacked before he gets an opportunity to flee or negotiate and end to the Civil War. The timing of the declaration is entirely appropriate IC, but it defeats the purpose of the rule which was made to keep things civil on an OOC basis. I think a simple edit would be in order to make it cover the first "full" turn.
Ramses II CP
05-05-2008, 17:46
I don't see any IC way to justify Guillemot waiting to declare war. It's exactly what the situation calls for, so a rule to delay it would be a bit intrusive.
I think you've a bit misunderstood my question, let me phrase it this way; Can PK, Igno, and OK coordinate the 'release' of the save so that one person has first crack at it? It's not so much the technicality of having to make a post first as the line between the Chancellor's OOC power over the save and his IC motivations and loyalties.
:egypt:
Is there a rule dispute? The Chancellor can choose not to top off the King's army as long as he does not recruite at all for this turn.
The rule dispute would be whether topping off would be required at all, not whether there's a way to get around the top-off even if it is required. You are right about the Chancellor's method around it, but the question is whether he has to use that method or whether the top-off isn't required in the first place, thus leaving the Chancellor free to recruit however he wants.
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 17:52
The rule dispute would be whether topping off would be required at all, not whether there's a way to get around the top-off even if it is required. You are right about the Chancellor's method around it, but the question is whether he has to use that method or whether the top-off isn't required in the first place, thus leaving the Chancellor free to recruit however he wants.
Ok, so Poitevin needs to rule on whether the King's army should get a top off because he was only at war for part of a turn?
And then if Poitevin's ruling is "top-off required", Louis can still choose to not top-off the army anyways by just not recruiting anything?
I don't see any IC way to justify Guillemot waiting to declare war. It's exactly what the situation calls for, so a rule to delay it would be a bit intrusive.
I think you've a bit misunderstood my question, let me phrase it this way; Can PK, Igno, and OK coordinate the 'release' of the save so that one person has first crack at it? It's not so much the technicality of having to make a post first as the line between the Chancellor's OOC power over the save and his IC motivations and loyalties.
:egypt:
They could, but that would be an underhanded move OOC and is exactly what we should discourage. I see no problems with that in general, so long as the person who's likely to be attacked has had their one turn to run away or surrender. However, using that method to skip over the immunity period is defeating what I consider to be a very important rule. We need to ensure that IC animosity doesn't spill over to OOC animosity. Thus, underhanded methods like this need to be excluded from PvP situations.
On this particular situation alone, I am going to simply make a decree for the Test Game. King Phillip may not be attacked next turn, end of story. Rule 5.1 will be changed so that the relevant line reads (bold bit is changed):
Neither the nobleman who made the Declaration of War, nor anyone below him in his vassal chain, can attack the target of that Declaration, or anyone below the target in his vassal chain, until the target(s) have been provided with one full turn's worth of movement.
That wording should cover the current turn, if none of the targets have moved at the time of the declaration, or the next turn, if some of them have moved.
Ok, so Poitevin needs to rule on whether the King's army should get a top off because he was only at war for part of a turn?
And then if Poitevin's ruling is "top-off required", Louis can still choose to not top-off the army anyways by just not recruiting anything?
Correct, though I think the usual method for a rule dispute would require some kind of IC claim to it first. We can skip that for the Test Game, but the rule dispute power is meant to be used IC, so it should be handled as such in the real game. First, someone claims a rules dispute. Then it is adjudicated by whoever is proper under the circumstances.
Privateerkev
05-05-2008, 18:07
Correct, though I think the usual method for a rule dispute would require some kind of IC claim to it first. We can skip that for the Test Game, but the rule dispute power is meant to be used IC, so it should be handled as such in the real game. First, someone claims a rules dispute. Then it is adjudicated by whoever is proper under the circumstances.
So, then are we waiting for TLG to make a ruling or are we just going to assume he'd rule in favor of the King?
As for when the Chancellor posts a save, I think that should be completely OOC without regard for when the Chancellor's allies' players are online. Posting the save is a OOC mechanic and should be treated as such. Like you said, doing otherwise will probably lead to OOC hurt feelings. I like that characters get sneaky and underhanded with each other. But I don't want players getting underhanded and sneaky with each other. :no:
OverKnight
05-05-2008, 18:28
If I'm ever Chancellor in the real game, I'm going to stay out of civil wars just to avoid the logistical headaches and cognitive dissonance. :laugh4:
I'll recruit troops for Phillip, however the sheer amount of men required means that recruiment will take place in two or three settlements. I also don't know where he'll be going, so I can't guarantee, even OOC, that they'll all reach him by the end of next turn.
Think of it as a semi-panicked call for troops.
I'm glad the test game is serving it's purpose.
Unfortunately, all this added stuff means I won't be able to get to the save until Tuesday in the morning, EST.
Under the circumstances, I think we can assume that TLG will rule in favor of the King and move on from there. No need to delay this any further. It's just a test after all.
OK, if troop assembly is problematic, remember that you can also use mercs to bulk him up. With the huge casualties in the battle, there should be a lot more income next turn due to reduced upkeep.
The Lemongate
05-05-2008, 19:20
Under the circumstances, I think we can assume that TLG will rule in favor of the King and move on from there. No need to delay this any further. It's just a test after all.
I do.
And ouch...
uh :surrender:
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 00:35
maybe the 3rd time is a charm...
Ignoramus! Please clear your PM inbox!
:clown:
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 00:53
I saw this in the King's post in the SOT and it made me think of a general question.
1148 Notes: However the Civil War situation plays out the King will end this turn with no units in his Royal Army, and I believe under the rules the Chancellor must train or hire on new units to recreate that Royal army.
Now, I understand OK is going to refill the King's army and this post is not referring to that.
This question is for the "real" game. If someone gives away part or all of their army, does the Chancellor have to refill it?
Under the rules now, someone with a legal army, can give units to another legal army, and then the original person can demand more units. If the 2nd army is "locked" there doesn't seem to be anything the Chancellor can do about it.
Is this kind of unit hording something we want to allow? I ask because it seems like the Chancellor has no choice except to recruit nothing at all across the whole faction. He'd only be able to hire mercs for people. Otherwise he'd be forced to fill the armies of hoarders. If those who owned legal armies worked together, they could make it where all but one of them has a legal full-stack army without the Chancellor's consent.
I guess another option would be for the Chancellor or his ally to declare war on the hoarders because then he doesn't have to keep refilling their armies. :laugh4:
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 01:03
Sorry for the triple post but Ig logged off without clearing his PM box so I'm going to put my PM for him in here.
The following spoiler is for Ignoramus and OverKnight. Not for anyone else. But, everyone else can rest assured that it is nothing particularly juicy or exciting. :clown:
Hi Ig,
We're still in the 1150 turn and I have a question. Would you consider dropping Richart's ballista? We could use it for other things.
But you have your army "locked" in the SOT so we need your permission. You'd have to either "unlock" your army in the SOT or just give a specific order to OverKnight saying he can take the ballista out of your army when he makes your move for you.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Kevin
This PM is CC'd to OverKnight to keep him in the loop.
This question is for the "real" game. If someone gives away part or all of their army, does the Chancellor have to refill it?
Under the rules now, someone with a legal army, can give units to another legal army, and then the original person can demand more units. If the 2nd army is "locked" there doesn't seem to be anything the Chancellor can do about it.
Is this kind of unit hording something we want to allow? I ask because it seems like the Chancellor has no choice except to recruit nothing at all across the whole faction. He'd only be able to hire mercs for people. Otherwise he'd be forced to fill the armies of hoarders. If those who owned legal armies worked together, they could make it where all but one of them has a legal full-stack army without the Chancellor's consent.
I guess another option would be for the Chancellor or his ally to declare war on the hoarders because then he doesn't have to keep refilling their armies. :laugh4:
I thought about this recently, actually. You can guess what conclusion I arrived at by the fact that I sent an IC PM to Ramses urging just such a thing to boost the Anjou armies. There are a couple issues with this, but they all seem to resolve themselves nicely IC.
First, there's the fact that it's a way for neutral noblemen to provide active military aid to one side in a Civil War. That's a loophole around the rule that doesn't require topping up of armies involved in a Civil War. However, it resolves itself nicely. The situation by its nature requires that a nobleman strip his own army down to the bare minimum. That makes him very vulnerable to attack. So, the neutral nobleman can continue to do this forced resupply, but he has to leave himself with almost no defenses on a regular basis in order to accomplish it. This would allow him to be easily squashed if someone declared war against him. A nice balance, I think.
Second, this poses some problems outside a Civil War as well, since it would be a method by which any owner of a Private/Royal Army could force the bulking up of any city or fort garrison of their choice. Just dump your own men into the city/fort of your favorite vassal and then get the mandatory resupply. Too much of this would risk draining the treasury dry with upkeep. That in itself seems like an interesting IC situation to me. Too many armies and not enough florins to go around. A negotiated settlement between multiple noblemen for disbanding could result, or perhaps a major offensive against the AI to use the men that are otherwise going to waste. Another option would of course be Civil War to get rid of the most egregious army hoarders. In all cases, it seems like something that would be more fun to deal with IC instead of OOC.
So, all in all I'm inclined to let the 'loophole' stand simply because it creates interesting IC situations which would probably bring more to the game than they would take away.
I would like to hear some general discussion about how the game seems to be working at the moment. Many of us haven't had much to do, but there have been several people involved in downloading, making moves, and uploading nearly every turn. I'm curious to hear whether the game seems to work relatively efficiently, whether it is too complex, and whether there are any changes that should be made to improve the actual handling of the movements and/or saves. I am also curious about the general perceptions of the Civil War mechanics. Is it working well? Too hard? Too confusing? Is the AI Battle option nice and efficient or simply annoyingly unpredictable? All comments are welcome.
For OK in particular, how are you finding the burden of being Chancellor? Is it easy to understand what you need to do and locate the information you need, or is the added level of freedom for the other players making your job too hard? Are the permanent influence bonuses for the Chancellor enough 'compensation'? Is this a job people are actually going to want?
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 14:41
I'm curious to hear whether the game seems to work relatively efficiently, whether it is too complex, and whether there are any changes that should be made to improve the actual handling of the movements and/or saves.
I think it is going along as smoothly as it can. Having people dl/ul the saves has not been a problem. Though I still predict there will be "traffic jams" in the real game when we have 20+ people rushing for the save in a 24 hour period.
There seems to be a small learning curve as people learn what they can and can not do with the save, as well as what they need to put in the SOT in order to make sure their wishes are implemented. But that should shake itself out after we have played for a little while. Maybe a short "how to play" guide will be in order for new players to learn what to post in the SOT and what they can do with the save.
Hopefully the real game will have longer turns than 24 hours. While I understand it is to help us get through the test game quickly, I find it hurts my chances at coordinating with the other players. Guillemot basically has to be a "General" and just give orders because I don't have time to ask a question via PM, get a response, send another PM with ideas, get another response, then tell the Chancellor what we want. With only 24 hours, and players spanning the globe, I only have time to send one PM telling them what I want and then I hope the Chancellor will implement what I want if the other players do not submit on time. While this has been working somewhat effeciently, it is muting any possibility at real RP'ing and story writing.
I am also curious about the general perceptions of the Civil War mechanics. Is it working well? Too hard? Too confusing? Is the AI Battle option nice and efficient or simply annoyingly unpredictable?
I've already laid out my biggest concern. And that is the ability for players to react to other players within a turn. I prefer a "we-go" system like we had for KotR. Where everyone submits orders to another party and that person implements them at once. The new rule Ramses and TC hammered out to allow other people the option of moving their allies will help but I still prefer "we-go". The problem with "we-go" however is that it will probably put a burden on one person which is something we've really wanted to get away from.
I find the AI battle option to be both quick and fair. I like the big PvP battles but they are too time consuming to do often. The AI battle allows us to have civil wars be a viable option without fearing that it will bog the game down to a crawl. While the AI is incompetent, it is incompetent to both sides equally. It is the great equalizer. The only catch is that when you plan for battles, you have to think about how the AI will implement the battle, not what you would do in the battle.
OverKnight
05-06-2008, 14:46
The burden of being Chancellor has increased somewhat, but not too much compared to Matthias's two terms. I remember the heady days of Otto's Chancellorship when I could basically do anything I wanted and send people wherever I wanted.
The major difference is I have to pay a lot more attention to various orders, queues and PMs. The job has become more clerical and less strategic, players have a lot more say in the direction of the game and I have to make sure it ends up in game play. Trying to forge a strategic concensus out of this might be difficult, like herding cats.
Considering I'm excaberating a civil war and possibly regicide by proxy without getting my own hands dirty, the job does have its advantages. Though it would be interesting to see if I could fight off an impeachment, as Louis is violating acceptable Chancellor behavior for some people and an Emergency Session would be one of the few ways, at the moment, to rein him in.
Hopefully the real game will have longer turns than 24 hours. While I understand it is to help us get through the test game quickly, I find it hurts my chances at coordinating with the other players. Guillemot basically has to be a "General" and just give orders because I don't have time to ask a question via PM, get a response, send another PM with ideas, get another response, then tell the Chancellor what we want. With only 24 hours, and players spanning the globe, I only have time to send one PM telling them what I want and then I hope the Chancellor will implement what I want if the other players do not submit on time. While this has been working somewhat effeciently, it is muting any possibility at real RP'ing and story writing.
My perception was that most Chancellors would grant periods longer than 24 hours to make their moves. I would expect 48, or even 72, hours to become the norm eventually, but I didn't want to legislate it. The 24 hours is meant to be the 'minimum' to ensure that the Chancellor does not go below that level. I do actively encourage extensions on a regular basis, though. I would expect the first Chancellorship or two to go relatively fast, and probably not need extensions. However, after that each Chancellor could simply say that all turns will be XX hours long, and that will be that. If we mandate 48 hours, then we have to sit around twiddling our thumbs if we finish early. Better to mandate less time, and encourage time extensions as normal operating procedure.
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 14:55
I have rules question.
Does the Chancellor have to respect the SOT when he finds replacements for an army?
Here is the Chancellor report:
King Phillip's attack by proxy on Gascony has cost him his entire army. Alone in hostile territory, he hired a unit of Frankish Knights, the only mercenaries available in the area. The King has called on on Rheims (spear militia), Metz (armored spearmen and two sergeant spearmen) and Staufen (Feudal Knights and two peasant crossbowmen) to refill his ranks. This, plus another missile regiment recruited later, will serve as his new army. The question is if he can gather these men in time.
Now Rheims is fine because Gibson never posted a SOT. (hmm... remind me to ask OK to disband Rheims's militia... hehehehehehe)
But Staufen is the King's and he posted: "No units to be removed or disbanded."
And Metz is Poitevin's and he posted: "no units may be removed or disbanded."
Now if these two sent PM's saying units could leave, then my apologies. I'm just trying to get a grasp of the rules.
Here is something I just thought of. If the Chancellor wanted to refill the King's army quickly, he could have just sent units from his own army over to the King. They're pretty close to each other. I forget offhand what the Prince has but I'm sure it would go a long way towards fulfilling the requirements for a Royal Army. Then the obligation would be met, the Chancellor could recruit himself shiny new things, and we can get on with the business of killing each other. :beam:
Yes, the Chancellor does have to obey the SOT. The restrictions on Staufen can definitely be ignored because the units are being supplied from the King's property directly to his own Royal Army. While perhaps technically illegal, it's within the spirit of the King's orders. Metz is definitely illegal, though and it's good of you to point it out. This situation is a bit awkward and it's worth some discussion to figure out what to do about it.
First, we could leave the rules as they are. That makes the mandated resupply of depleted Private/Royal Armies something of a pain. It would require IC dealmaking and negotiating. Usually that is a good thing, but since this is something the Chancellor has to do, it could be more annoying that it's worth.
Second, we could legislate an exception to the rules for the purposes of resupplying depleted Private/Royal Armies. This would be relatively easy and would go something like the following:
4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. Units recruited for the purposes of restoring Private and Royal Armies to minimum strength may not have their movement restricted by the owners of the settlements in which they are recruited. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.
(Addition is italicized)
This rule alteration may be the best way to go, as the Chancellor's life may otherwise become a huge pain in the butt.
OverKnight
05-06-2008, 15:09
You're forgetting that you took all my infantry PK. :clown:
I did the best I could recruiting units that Ramses could access in a reasonable time frame. Considering the Angevins are his allies, I see no problem. I've got a clear duty under 4.3, one that I think trumps local control of a garrison. Notice I'm recruitng troops specifically for the King, I'm not moving existing troops from the garrison.
If I don't get PMs forbidding me to move those troops out of the settlements by the respective owners, they'll go to Phillip.
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 15:14
You're forgetting that you took all my infantry PK. :clown:
Yeah, and I still say they are the only reason Guillemot is alive right now. :D
I did the best I could recruiting units that Ramses could access in a reasonable time frame. Considering the Angevins are his allies, I see no problem. I've got a clear duty under 4.3, one that I think trumps local control of a garrison. Notice I'm recruitng troops specifically for the King, I'm not moving existing troops from the garrison.
If I don't get PMs forbidding me to move those troops out of the settlements by the respective owners, they'll go to Phillip.
But, I'm not sure you can "ignore" a rule. TC said something about rules being binding on the Chancellor. If TLG says no one can leave Metz, then no one can leave Metz. Period.
:clown: <-- smiley to add levity to a post that could be taken far too seriously.
And that's why I think this rule change would be good, even though it removes an area of IC negotiation. The rules ARE binding on the Chancellor, but this one would not only create annoying negotiations on a regular basis, but it would also cause problems for the owners of Private/Royal Armies which would reduce their power somewhat. I think PA/RA need to remain 'big' rank bonuses, and thus we need to do what we can to preseve them. In this case, it looks like we need to allow newly recruited units to ignore local orders so long as those units are only being created to boost a PA/RA to minimum strength levels. Everything above minimum should require the usual negotiation or recruitment from a pre-authorized location, but that minimum level should be given priority over everything else IMO.
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 15:22
And that's why I think this rule change would be good, even though it removes an area of IC negotiation. The rules ARE binding on the Chancellor, but this one would not only create annoying negotiations on a regular basis, but it would also cause problems for the owners of Private/Royal Armies which would reduce their power somewhat. I think PA/RA need to remain 'big' rank bonuses, and thus we need to do what we can to preseve them. In this case, it looks like we need to allow newly recruited units to ignore local orders so long as those units are only being created to boost a PA/RA to minimum strength levels. Everything above minimum should require the usual negotiation or recruitment from a pre-authorized location, but that minimum level should be given priority over everything else IMO.
But how does that work in a civil war? Doers that mean the Prince can recruite men for the King from Toulouse (Guillemot's castle) and Guillemot can't do anything about it? Since it could conceivably decide whether Guillemot lives or dies in a future battle, I'd be pretty pissed IC if that happened. :yes:
(OOC I'd be fine because its a rule. IC I'd be rightously pissed though. :furious3: )
OverKnight
05-06-2008, 15:26
The King only gets one top-off and then, because he is in a Civil War officially after that, I don't have to reinforce him if I don't want to.
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 15:32
The King only gets one top-off and then, because he is in a Civil War officially after that, I don't have to reinforce him if I don't want to.
Yeah, and thats one of the reasons I declared war. He was able to do one "lend-lease" act and that is it.
In hind-sight, I should have just declared war on him in turn 1. But I was afraid I'd lose people in my chain and that neutrals would jump in on the King's side. :laugh4:
But how does that work in a civil war? Doers that mean the Prince can recruite men for the King from Toulouse (Guillemot's castle) and Guillemot can't do anything about it? Since it could conceivably decide whether Guillemot lives or dies in a future battle, I'd be pretty pissed IC if that happened. :yes:
(OOC I'd be fine because its a rule. IC I'd be rightously pissed though. :furious3: )
OK is right. It doesn't apply to a Civil War. Technically, the unit would have been recruited while Guillemot and Phillip were still neutral with each other. The current situation is only occurring because of the timing of the Declaration and the previous 'donation.' It's not really a question of recruiting units in your settlement for a hostile army, it's recruiting units in your settlement for a neutral army that you declared war on shortly afterwards.
Even then, it required a 'rules dispute' ruling which didn't go your way because of IC politics. If Gascony had held the highest rank outside FL, you could have ruled that Phillip shouldn't get his reinforcements in this specific and bizarre situation.
_Tristan_
05-06-2008, 15:48
I've already laid out my biggest concern. And that is the ability for players to react to other players within a turn. I prefer a "we-go" system like we had for KotR. Where everyone submits orders to another party and that person implements them at once. The new rule Ramses and TC hammered out to allow other people the option of moving their allies will help but I still prefer "we-go". The problem with "we-go" however is that it will probably put a burden on one person which is something we've really wanted to get away from.
I completely agree with this... Some "blind" system would be better and would prevent doing thing IC based on OOC knowledge... Though I agree it will put a large burden on someone...
EDIT : I do not like the first come- first served idea where whoever grabs the save either first or last can gain some kind of unfair advantage... I agree that we want to encourage as much participation from the players (or that is the reasoning behind the process, as I understood it...) but I find it detrimental to players who are active in the thread but cannot access the save as often as some others... And I say this knowing that in KoTR I was one of the first to be able to grab the save due to the time differences, hence my foray into France...
I find the AI battle option to be both quick and fair. I like the big PvP battles but they are too time consuming to do often. The AI battle allows us to have civil wars be a viable option without fearing that it will bog the game down to a crawl. While the AI is incompetent, it is incompetent to both sides equally. It is the great equalizer. The only catch is that when you plan for battles, you have to think about how the AI will implement the battle, not what you would do in the battle.
I would disagree and not only because I was on the losing side of the last PvP. The problem is I don't know what would be the best solution to replace those AI battles.
The main problem I see is that those AI PvP battles do not allow to make use of some strategically important situations such as that bridge battle where the encirclement we made should have divided Guillemot's forces (or not... but then he would have had to suffer a charge in the back of his line) with a different result from what happened the way TC set up the battle.
I think the AI battles are fine as it is a test game but I can assure you I would be rather angry had this happened in the real game... All that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong for our side (no cavalry charge, constant routing...) :furious3:
I have not given long thought to this but wouldn't it be possible to set up two PvAI battles (one for each side) and decide a victory and losses from some kind of average method or depending on who scored the most decisive victory... There would be no loss of time as both players could play their own battles and reveal their results simultaneously.
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 15:50
OK is right. It doesn't apply to a Civil War. Technically, the unit would have been recruited while Guillemot and Phillip were still neutral with each other. The current situation is only occurring because of the timing of the Declaration and the previous 'donation.' It's not really a question of recruiting units in your settlement for a hostile army, it's recruiting units in your settlement for a neutral army that you declared war on shortly afterwards.
Even then, it required a 'rules dispute' ruling which didn't go your way because of IC politics. If Gascony had held the highest rank outside FL, you could have ruled that Phillip shouldn't get his reinforcements in this specific and bizarre situation.
Ah, ok that makes more sense. OOC, I didn't really care which way it went but IC it just seemed strange to me to have a possible situation where Guillemot's castle is used to recruit men that would probably be used to kill Guillemot. I simply saw a "dis-connect" IC where it just didn't make sense.
:yes:
I have not given long thought to this but wouldn't it be possible to set up two PvAI battles (one for each side) and decide a victory and losses from some kind of average method or depending on who scored the most decisive victory... There would be no loss of time as both players could play their own battles and reveal their results simultaneously.
That was one of my original options, actually. I called it the Custom Battle option and the text read:
Custom Battles will involve both players fighting a custom battle against the AI and submitting their results. econ21, or anyone he chooses, will create the custom battle and determine any extra rules involved in it.
However, in initial discussions with various people it was brought up that a few people who are very good at this game could wipe the floor with the rest of us with this method. I recall FactionHeir being the prime example, with people thinking he could probably declare war on everyone and win with just a single unit of cavalry. Leaving it up to individual skill in playing TW games is somewhat questionable when we're supposed to be roleplaying other people, not our uber-elite gamer selves.
For the record, though, I am very much open to other ideas for resolving PvP battles. I spent a long time looking for other methods, including browser based games and PnP systems. I couldn't find anything that fit well, though. If anyone knows of a system that might work, I'm eager to hear about it.
_Tristan_
05-06-2008, 16:07
Still I would prefer to have my @$$ kicked by FH (even if not directly) rather than some dumb AI fighting the fight of a lifetime (as might have been the case with the Poitevin-Chanteur vs Guillemot battle) for me...
EDIT : And I think it would give some incentive IC to recruit some players into your feudal chain if only for their TW battle skills...
Well, I don't see the harm in it as long as everyone involved in the battle agrees to it. We could simply add Custom Battles back in as an additional option on top of what we already have. We could then make Multiplayer, Custom Battles, and AI Battles require only the consent of the people involved, and restrict the 'vote' to the Tabletop and Abbreviated Tabletop, both of which require more time.
Ramses II CP
05-06-2008, 17:05
So, regarding the do not remove or etc. rules, isn't it actually in the King's interest to refuse to let the Chancellor hedge the rules? If the King says no units can be removed from Staufen, then no units can, and the Chancellor needs to recruit units for the King from somewhere else. That way when/if I get to Staufen I'll have all those units coming in to join the ones already present.
Quite honestly I'm not sure how the reinforcement rule is going to work out given the other rules in place about recruitment. Mercenaries will work to some extent, but I have a feeling everyone who is actually in the game is going to set their settlement to do not remove/do not disband, so we'll be down to recruiting only at the settlements of people who aren't really playing.
On the AI battles, I do think they're fair, but they're also ugly and incomprehensible. How do you write a story about what we saw in the replay without assuming the gross incompetence of all three commanders? It also troubles me that in these pivotal battles there won't be any modeling of the traits of the characters. That also seemed to be the case for the battle of Trent, but I took that as more a matter of simplification given that there were so many avatars involved.
I think we've gotten a bit trapped by the rules at the moment. The Chancellor has to recruit units for the King, but the way things look he's mostly forced to recruit units that will almost certainly be siezed by others before they can reach the King.
:egypt:
Privateerkev
05-06-2008, 17:16
So, regarding the do not remove or etc. rules, isn't it actually in the King's interest to refuse to let the Chancellor hedge the rules? If the King says no units can be removed from Staufen, then no units can, and the Chancellor needs to recruit units for the King from somewhere else. That way when/if I get to Staufen I'll have all those units coming in to join the ones already present.
Yes, if you refuse to let the Chancellor take men from Staufen, he's forced to get them from somewhere else. So this way you get the new men from somewhere else as well as the ones that were already from Staufen.
Unless were saying that reinforcements have to all be recruited fresh. Then it doesn't matter where they come from.
But if current units can count towards the total, then it is in the King's interest to make sure his current units are not used to fill his army. That way, he gets more units. :yes:
Quite honestly I'm not sure how the reinforcement rule is going to work out given the other rules in place about recruitment. Mercenaries will work to some extent, but I have a feeling everyone who is actually in the game is going to set their settlement to do not remove/do not disband, so we'll be down to recruiting only at the settlements of people who aren't really playing.
In the beginning, probably so. However, after a while we're going to go bankrupt with upkeep due to this system, so it'll get worked out IC. People could agree to set caps on their garrisons. Those that violate this policy would face the wrath of the rest. We could try to legislate it, but I think that would be far more messy than doing it IC.
On the AI battles, I do think they're fair, but they're also ugly and incomprehensible. How do you write a story about what we saw in the replay without assuming the gross incompetence of all three commanders? It also troubles me that in these pivotal battles there won't be any modeling of the traits of the characters. That also seemed to be the case for the battle of Trent, but I took that as more a matter of simplification given that there were so many avatars involved.
I see AI Battles are our equivalent of an autoresolve in the Hotseat games. I'm only providing a descriptive commentary as an explanation. If people want to make up some other explanation for what happened, that's fine with me. It's far from ideal, but it's the fastest and easiest system I can think of. I still hold out hope that we'll find a perfect solution to the PvP battles.
I like the idea of online MP, Custom, and AI Battles being up to the players fighting and a vote required for tabletop battles. :yes:
I personally don't see much advantage to PvAI battles. I'm not in the top tier of players here, but I can easily defeat a AI army roughly equal to my own with almost no casualties. I could very easily see a situation where one person wins because in his battle he had 15 casualties, to the other person's 10. :clown: Players still have little incentive to play traits, since they need to score as big of a victory as possible to win.
I suppose in the above example the majority of both armies would be disbanded, which is another issue. Most of us are pretty good players, and PvAI battle results can be expected to be fairly close for most battles, unless one side has a huge advantage. While near mutual destruction with one side winning slightly might be fair, it doesn't make for decisive battles (it also means having to be extremely inventive to make up a story fitting the results, considering neither player's battle would have turned out anything like the official results). AI battles are both quick and add an element of chance, where one side might score a major upset (as actually happened in the test game battle).
I guess I'm just saying the AI battles have their advantages as well.
GeneralHankerchief
05-06-2008, 20:42
I would ideally like to see actual MP battles pop up from time to time. Everyone seems scared to do them, but it probably evens out that way - since everyone's scared, nobody's confident then.
You mean online MP battles? I think they'd be neat as well, although I sadly lack an internet connection fast enough to play them. :shame:
GeneralHankerchief
05-06-2008, 20:48
Yeah.
That was the original idea for WotS, but during a test we found out that MP didn't work with the mod we were using. Then tabletop came up and we've never looked back.
If two players can execute it without problem, I would especially like to see MP battles going on, especially if the battle in question is relatively minor.
I will happily use the MP option. I've never played any TW game in multiplayer, but it's the best possible method of implementing PvP, hands down. It's fast, it will accurately model the effects of combat far better than tabletop can, and it leaves absolutely nothing up to the whims of the AI. About the only thing it can't do is include the trait bonuses/penalties of the generals, which no other method does well anyway.
GeneralHankerchief
05-06-2008, 21:17
Someone's going to have to check whether it's compatible with the mod we're going to use though (still SS, right?). Aside from logistical issues, that's the only potential danger.
gibsonsg91921
05-07-2008, 00:01
Yo, I haven't been here a while (AP Tests + Reluctance to test the game I won't be able to play in), but do I just give orders for Viscount Jacques in the Orders thread or do I have to implement them myself?
Privateerkev
05-07-2008, 00:06
Yo, I haven't been here a while (AP Tests + Reluctance to test the game I won't be able to play in), but do I just give orders for Viscount Jacques in the Orders thread or do I have to implement them myself?
1.) You can post in the SOT and say what you want to do.
2.) You can take the save and move yourself.
3.) You can PM OverKnight OOC and ask him to move you when he takes the save back.
Either of these will work. :yes:
gibsonsg91921
05-07-2008, 01:05
neato! thanks
OverKnight
05-07-2008, 05:48
Unless anyone wants to propose legislation, does anyone mind if I post an Impeachment Poll? Or should I wait for TC to do it.
While this will be a nice test of the new influence system, I would like to expedite things so we can continue with the game.
Not sure about the others, but you can put me in the "doesn't mind if OK goes ahead and does the poll" camp.
I can't help but think this will still delay the game a day or two, but it's nice to test another component of the new rules.
Unless anyone wants to propose legislation, does anyone mind if I post an Impeachment Poll? Or should I wait for TC to do it.
While this will be a nice test of the new influence system, I would like to expedite things so we can continue with the game.
Privateerkev
05-07-2008, 13:33
While this will be a nice test of the new influence system,
wow, I just realized Guillemot's stats really really suck. :P
So, is this like KotR where everyone get a "vote" but you add influence to it? The only difference being you have to make sure you don't go above the cap for your rank?
So "voting power" would be 1 vote + influence up to rank cap?
And Chancellor adds 2 because it is an emergency session unless his own stats are really high?
So, is this like KotR where everyone get a "vote" but you add influence to it? The only difference being you have to make sure you don't go above the cap for your rank?
So "voting power" would be 1 vote + influence up to rank cap?
Eh... kind of. The KOTR system never made complete sense to me. For that everyone had 1 vote, and then we lumped more influence on top of it. For this game, influence INCLUDES the 1 base vote. The caveat being that everyone gets a minimum of 1 vote, no matter what their stats are.
If you are a rank that only allows a max of 1 influence, we don't even need to count your stat influence, since it doesn't make a difference. That's why Knight and Baron only list influence as 1. Technically, they have "Up to 1 Stat Influence" but since no one can go below 1, there's not much point in doing the stat calculation.
However, in order to get 2 votes, you have to have the stats for 2 influence. A Viscount who meets none of the stat influence requirements gets 1 vote due to the minimum rule. A Viscount who meets 1 of the stat influence requirements gets 1 vote. A Viscount who meets 2 of the stat influence requirements gets 2 votes. A Viscount who meets 3 of the stat influence requirements gets 2 vote because he is at the cap.
An easy summary is as follows:
All voting power is determined directly by stat influence, except that voting power can never be lower than 1 and it cannot be higher than that allowed by the rank cap(s). The only non-stat influence voting power in the entire game belongs to Chancellors and ex-Chancellors, who have their own rules.
OverKnight
05-07-2008, 14:48
Impeachment poll is up, I'm going to load the latest save and work out everyone's influence and edit it in. Someone who isn't being impeached should check my math. :wink:
I am going to have to withdrawal from this. Something has gone wrong with my computer and no game will load up. Everything else seems fine, but when I try to load games the screen just turns black. Sorry to inconvenience you all.
AussieGiant
05-08-2008, 09:00
I am going to have to withdrawal from this. Something has gone wrong with my computer and no game will load up. Everything else seems fine, but when I try to load games the screen just turns black. Sorry to inconvenience you all.
Video card issues Ichigo, uninstall and reinstall the drivers and then give it a shot. Not saying this will solve it but it has happened to me before on Total War games.
OverKnight
05-08-2008, 13:46
So I guess we're waiting on Tristan and PrinceofTroy.
Unless things fall out differently than I expect, it looks like we'll be heading into an election. Unless of course we assume Philip has never, in his 57 years, used his prerogative to assume the Chancellorship and Ramses wants the job.
Things should get even more interesting.
Ramses II CP
05-08-2008, 13:57
Ahh, the trouble with me taking the job is, I'm still involved in a civil war and, in fact, pretty much alone and on the run. If I can give orders to those men who were supposed to be my reinforcements I'm going to order them to instead reinforce Anjou's nobles. So if I became Chancellor and immediately thereafter I died... new election with King Louis holding all the cards.
We're going to have to pick a different person. I have someone in mind, however, which I'll try to discuss with the heads of the respective houses as sure as we're certain it's necessary.
:egypt:
Since we're at the point of adding a lot more complexity (and time) to the Test Game, do we want to continue it? We're only playing this to test the rules, so when it ceases to serve that purpose we should end it and prepare for the real game. Does it seem like there is still more to be learned from the Test Game?
The Lemongate
05-08-2008, 14:19
Hum, I must say that though I tried a bit to give life to Raoulet, I wasn't that much into the guy... so I wouldn't mind closing the Test Game now. Or we can continue it.
Privateerkev
05-08-2008, 14:25
Since we're at the point of adding a lot more complexity (and time) to the Test Game, do we want to continue it? We're only playing this to test the rules, so when it ceases to serve that purpose we should end it and prepare for the real game. Does it seem like there is still more to be learned from the Test Game?
I'm happy with what we've learned from it. I say we close it unless we think we can learn more from it. But if others want to continue it, then I will continue to to prosecute a civil war to the best of my ability. :beam:
If we do continue the game, does Ichigo's vote count? This thing might come down to the wire so it is important. Can his replacement vote? Do we force him to abstain? It doesn't seem fair that a guy voted after he quit the game. :no:
*edit*
Nevermind, it seems Ichigo's game works and he can keep playing. :2thumbsup:
OverKnight
05-08-2008, 14:36
Things are some things we haven't vetted in the test game:
Oath-breaking and the fall out from that.
Reorginazation, merging or splitting of Houses and the fall out.
Inheritance
Beheading of former Chancellors on charges of high treason. :laugh4:
Still, I'm eager to get going on a real game. I'm not opposed to learning on the fly.
Privateerkev
05-08-2008, 14:50
It would take forever to test every aspect of the rules. In fact, we've changed the rules since we've started the test game. I think we've got the mechanics of the game "down" pretty good and the rest will shake itself out. Plus, in the real game, we can just pass CA's if we find rules that need tweaking.
The Lemongate
05-08-2008, 15:11
Reorginazation, merging or splitting of Houses and the fall out.
That was actually in the works with the impeachment.
Though I'm not sure we would've gotten the impeachment done because some ppl probably won't answer, being mostly AFK and all.
Ramses II CP
05-08-2008, 15:23
I feel obligated to point out that even in the test game, where we're playing with throw away avatars and deliberately trying to test the rules, no one was willing to break their oath. The King made repeated attempts including offering to let people start their own house and have a well developed city in Marsellies. I would very much like us to reconsider some of the stability rules to prevent oath breaking in that light. In character considerations will be the number one stability enhancement IMHO.
As far as continuing, I'm not sure there's enough commitment to the avatars to make the wrangling over merging houses really impactful. I still favor some sort of secondary land based nobility system, but I think the general consensus was towards the double count system instead.
Oh, and it seems the primary check on the Chancellor's power is going to be impeachment (As it should be, the Chancellorship is meant to be that pwoerful!). If you're in a conflict with the Chancellor you're going to want to be quite sure you have an emergency session call in your hand, and you might want to count votes ahead of time too, or get ready to surrender. :laugh4:
:egypt:
Privateerkev
05-08-2008, 15:31
I feel obligated to point out that even in the test game, where we're playing with throw away avatars and deliberately trying to test the rules, no one was willing to break their oath. The King made repeated attempts including offering to let people start their own house and have a well developed city in Marsellies. I would very much like us to reconsider some of the stability rules to prevent oath breaking in that light. In character considerations will be the number one stability enhancement IMHO.
I'd argue that apathy was the real reason people didn't break their oaths. No one was very attached to their avatar or the game. In the "real" game, I suspect people will care about their avatar more and take oath-breaking into consideration to further their goals.
Oh, and it seems the primary check on the Chancellor's power is going to be impeachment (As it should be, the Chancellorship is meant to be that pwoerful!). If you're in a conflict with the Chancellor you're going to want to be quite sure you have an emergency session call in your hand, and you might want to count votes ahead of time too, or get ready to surrender. :laugh4:
:egypt:
Yeah, we learned that the hard way. :laugh4:
The Chancellor is powerful but can be brought down if he steps on too many toes. :yes:
M2TW still works, the problem seems to be with only Victoria and HoI2:DD. So I should still be able to praticipate, if I haven't been replaced.
Privateerkev
05-08-2008, 16:02
M2TW still works, the problem seems to be with only Victoria and HoI2:DD. So I should still be able to praticipate, if I haven't been replaced.
Glad to hear it! :balloon2:
I've edited my one post accordingly... :yes:
I'd be ok with ending the game now, or continuing. I admit some excitement over the idea of finally getting to the real game in a week, or two weeks, or however long it takes.
Re: Oath breaking, although I wasn't exactly inundated with offers (:clown: ) I have to admit that despite having a character with a loyalty reducing trait this is one area where it'd be hard to reconcile my rp characters with my own character traits. No matter how easy or hard it is made to do so in the real game, I wouldn't be able to take such a thing lightly. :juggle2:
I declare the Test Game over.
I will be out of town from Thursday through Saturday next week, so I don't want to start the new game before then. However, we need some time to get the last bits done anyway. If you have comments about the current state of the rules, I urge you to bring them up now. Once the game starts, we'll need to use Amendments to change the rules, so it gets far more difficult.
Privateerkev
05-09-2008, 16:10
Congrats to Ramses and TLG for a game well played. :bow:
And congrats to EF for his strategic loyalty shift. Your vote ensured that the Chancellor would be impeached. I'd love to hear what got you to jump ship. :D
While Guillemot was fun, I'm not very sad to see him go. I tried my best to prosecute a believable and fun civil war. I am happily anticipating a somewhat quieter and more peaceful role in the real game.
Also, congrats to House Gascony for putting up with my "drill sargeant" attitude. :laugh4:
And, congrats to everyone for putting work into this and making sure the real game will go a little smoother because of our efforts. :bow:
Last but not least, congrats to TC for writing a cool backstory and interesting characters. :2thumbsup:
Ramses II CP
05-09-2008, 17:12
I don't think Philip acted as he would have in a real game because I felt a certain obligation to make forced moves towards testing the rules base, but ultimately we got a decent idea what some of the problem areas would be. I still have this question regarding the army refill situation:
Philip's troops were given away, resulting in the Chancellor being forced to recruit new troops for him (Or forgo all recruitment). The Chancellor recruits those men at various places all over France, right before Philip becomes involved in a civil war (Ending the obligation for future turns). On the next turn what is the Chancellor's obligation as far as getting those troops to Philip, and what are Philip's powers over them. For example:
1. Can Philip move those men for himself during his time with the save? They are not a part of his army, nor have they ever been, they're just technically men who are meant to refill his royal army. If Philip can move them on his own, can he attack with them? Can he give them away or move them anywhere he wants?
2. Can the Chancellor move them effectively at will, even if this results in them being in the same province as the King's enemies and thus available to be taken over and/or attacked? The 'must refill' rule seems purposeless then, except for mercenaries, and we might want to reword it so that the refill takes place when the avatar in question reaches a training facility or new mercenaries.
3. Can the owner of the province in which they were recruited sieze them before they're moved to refill Philip? What consequences would this have for the Chancellor's obligation, if any?
4. If standing orders leave no facilities available for recruitment, can mercenaries be hired into the armies of nearby generals, neutral or allied, and then taken to give to Philip? Can those mercs be siezed before they're pulled for Philip?
I think there was another fairly minor issue, but since I have a feeling there will be a lot of demands to refill private/royal armies, these issues may become fairly common and important.
It was fun PK. I think our scenario strained a bit under the actual characteristics of the avatars. I have to say, I'd also be a bit reluctant to submit my troops to an AI battle at this point. Hopefully something like a MP fight could be worked out. I'm also a little wary of the feudal structure at this point, but I think that will sort itself out as we play. We could even have a massive in game shift in the political structure towards a different set of requirements for ranks. I can see how that might be interesting.
edit: BTW if you checked the save and saw my somewhat odd move, my idea for Philip was to move him to Marsellies, have the friendly Chancellor hire/build him a ship, and start a war with Spain. That way either Guillemot recalls some men, or some more realisitic territorial bribes are available to Guillemot's vassals, or maybe Spain gets it's act together and mounts a real offensive. Either way Gascony is involved in a two front war.
:egypt:
The Lemongate
05-09-2008, 17:50
Congrats to everyone involved!
Wets my appetite for the real game!
To conclude our little story, I say Raoulet and Guillemot got bored of all the internal strife and ended up on a quest to conquer all the important slave ports of the Mediterranean... to add HUGE tracts of land to France of course!
Ok so I admit being quite single-minded lately :embarassed: ....
Privateerkev
05-09-2008, 18:09
Guillemot's plan was to assassinate the King so Louis could get his Chancellorship back. :2thumbsup:
If that didn't work, he was just going to pull back to Gascony and do a scorched earth campaign starting with Dijon.
Ituralde
05-09-2008, 19:34
I declare the Test Game over.
I will be out of town from Thursday through Saturday next week, so I don't want to start the new game before then. However, we need some time to get the last bits done anyway. If you have comments about the current state of the rules, I urge you to bring them up now. Once the game starts, we'll need to use Amendments to change the rules, so it gets far more difficult.
Good to hear that. I'll be gone all weekend and almost feared there would be a game up and running by the time I returned. Not that I wouldn't have minded it starting, say Tuesday. :beam:
Looking forward to it. Might just try to abolish some of the rules I helped create, before it starts. :2thumbsup:
The Lemongate
05-09-2008, 19:36
Actually, I was considering pushing Gascony back to its lands, maybe take Toulouse, and then simply give you the war with Spain and the Moors you wanted and the troops to wage it if you called off the civil war.
It was in Raoulet's character and he knew both he and Philip were too old to cling to power.
Or maybe I'm just a nice guy :clown:
Privateerkev
05-09-2008, 19:48
Actually, I was considering pushing Gascony back to its lands, maybe take Toulouse, and then simply give you the war with Spain and the Moors you wanted and the troops to wage it if you called off the civil war.
It was in Raoulet's character and he knew both he and Philip were too old to cling to power.
Or maybe I'm just a nice guy :clown:
Toulous was going to be my "Alamo". I was going to have PoT and Deguerra dump their troops in the castle after the election so the Chancellor couldn't disband them. Then have Ig and I do a fighting withdrawal back to Toulouse after destroying every building in Dijon. If we could whack the King on the way, we would.
The objective was to make it so much trouble to take, that it would just be better to accept a "status-quo" return. :D
Privateerkev
05-09-2008, 20:56
To conclude our little story, I say Raoulet and Guillemot got bored of all the internal strife and ended up on a quest to conquer all the important slave ports of the Mediterranean... to add HUGE tracts of land to France of course!
You know I just caught that joke... :laugh4:
Yes, if there was one thing Guillemot and Raoulet could agree on, it was the need to conquer all of North Africa... for the glory of France of course... ;)
The Lemongate
05-09-2008, 21:49
:clown:
Privateerkev
05-09-2008, 21:51
:clown:
If I wasn't afraid of being slapped with so many warning points, that it would have caused my expulsion from the .Org, I would have posted those IC PM's between Guillemot and Poitevin...
:laugh4:
*edit*
I think now I understand somewhat how Ramses felt when Fritz died. I would not have been sad if Guillemot met his end in the battle of the Rhine. ^_^
Ramses II CP
05-09-2008, 23:12
Heh! When you get somebody who, due to no developments of your own, is already a pretty thorough ******* there's certainly still fun and intrigue to be had, but there's a... residue as well. Feels good to shake it off afterward. I understood Fritz, even sympathized to some extent, but I'm also really glad to be out of his head.
:egypt:
Privateerkev
05-09-2008, 23:14
Heh! When you get somebody who, due to no developments of your own, is already a pretty thorough ******* there's certainly still fun and intrigue to be had, but there's a... residue as well. Feels good to shake it off afterward. I understood Fritz, even sympathized to some extent, but I'm also really glad to be out of his head.
I think I know how you feel. I had Guillemot written for me and a mission directive to instigate a civil war. While it was certainly... interesting to play a character with such moral ambiguity, I often felt like I needed a shower afterwards. :clown:
Ramses, you certainly managed to keep Fritz a believable and even sympathetic character, enough that chivalrous Andreas could respect him. :yes:
Sorry, I wasn't very helpful or active. Honestly, I really didn't know what I was doing and was sure of what to do most of the time. I always read the threads, but wasn't sure what to post, so I decided to stay quiet. At least now I think I've got a little better grasp of what's going on.
gibsonsg91921
05-10-2008, 05:21
Good luck with the actual game everyone! I'll still be hanging around, ready with a "that's what she said" or some creepy remark that makes you all question my sexual orientation.
Cecil XIX
05-10-2008, 06:27
Good luck with the actual game everyone! I'll still be hanging around, ready with a "that's what she said" or some creepy remark that makes you all question my sexual orientation.
The future of our PBEM rests in your hands, gibsonsg91921. :beam:
Privateerkev
05-10-2008, 06:33
Good luck with the actual game everyone! I'll still be hanging around, ready with a "that's what she said" or some creepy remark that makes you all question my sexual orientation.
your assuming that we care what your sexual orientation is.
:clown:
Ramses II CP
05-10-2008, 15:18
Ramses, you certainly managed to keep Fritz a believable and even sympathetic character, enough that chivalrous Andreas could respect him. :yes:
Thanks Z. :beam:
As long as no one is oriented such that they desire fictitious, pseudo-historical online avatars it's no matter to me. :laugh4: :clown:
:egypt:
Privateerkev
05-10-2008, 22:01
I wanted to say that I liked how the threads were set up.
I really liked the SOT. It forces us to be active and involved if we want control over our avatars and their resources. I'd like to hear from OK if it helped the Chancellor do his job.
It was nice that we moved the save dl/ul messages to the Chancellor thread. Though there was occasional "chatting" in the Chancellor thread it was kept to a minimum.
And it was nice that we moved the dl/ul messages out of the OOC thread and turned it into a pure "chat" thread.
And congrats to EF for his strategic loyalty shift. Your vote ensured that the Chancellor would be impeached. I'd love to hear what got you to jump ship. :D
the fact that my character had the traits 'very disloyal' and 'underhanded' along with a generous offer from the King. Sorry for not acting on that Ramses, free time is ridiculously short at the moment, shouldn't be typing this right now actually...
Ramses II CP
05-11-2008, 19:04
Absolutely, if EF's avatar had at any point broken his oath he was going to get Marsellies. I'd also offered Ajaccio, but since it was captured we were rather up in the air on the rest of it. The idea would've been for EF's avatar to start up a new House in the south to rival Gascony and to try to draw off the lower ranked Gascons, including my son. I would've funded this expansion via conquest in Germany.
:egypt:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.