Roleplaying MTW

[Roark]

Hi guys,

Tony has inspired me to take the roleplaying aspect of my campaigns to a new level but, being a disorganised person, I have only ever introduced broad and rudimentary aspects of roleplaying to the game. Eg:

- Muslim solidarity/non-aggression
- Titles only for nobles and/or natural-command generals
- No spamming of elites
- No unatural alliances (English-French)

So I'm curious about:

a. What roleplaying elements (ie: not necessarily iron-man rules) have you introduced in your own games?

b. For the hardcore roleplayers, like Tony: How you keep track of everything. (ie: Do you maintain a campaign journal or something similar?)

Thanks,

Roark.

[Martok]

Well you already follow some of the same rules I do (no weird alliances like Egyptians-Papacy, no spamming Huscarles/Varangian Guards/etc.). I tend to roleplay my faction in general -- not necessarily in terms of what they did historically (although I certainly end up doing so sometimes), but in terms of what they were more likely to do than not.

Take the Sicilians, for example: While I (of course) set up trading networks in the Mediterranean and build up a significant navy, I'm also less squeamish about signing peace treaties & alliances with Muslim factions (although I'll still usually do so only reluctantly). I'm more likely to go after the Byzantines, since I'm still Norse at heart and I covet the wealth of Constantinople -- and on a related note, as a good (perhaps *too* good, so to speak) Catholic, I'm going to have less compunction about going to war with Orthodox factions. Speaking of which, I'll also befriend the Pope, and usually side with him if I'm forced to choose between him and another ally. I'm also not afraid to get involved in any dynastic conflicts involving the French and/or English, since I may have a possible royal claim due to my Norman lineage.

I also tend to roleplay my notable personages -- faction leaders, princes, generals, & governors -- to at least some extent as well. If a general has the "Natural Leader" line of traits, then I tend to put him up towards the front in battle, despite the danger. If I have a prince who's "Chivalrous" and/or an "Honourable Warrior", then I'll usually have him behave as such (i.e., he won't execute prisoners, and will release rebels). If I have a governor who's "Zealous", I'll have him build churches/mosques, monasteries/ribats, etc. -- if I remember to, I'll even sometimes place an Inquisitor/Imam in that governor's province as well to raise the zeal there. And so on.


Now I don't necessarily do all these things on a consistent basis, but I try to. The main key, though, is to just get a feel for how you think your faction (and the major characters in it) ought to behave, and then act accordingly. You just do what feels "natural" to you.

[bondovic]

For me, the historical accuracy is not particularly important when roleplaying. Rather, the best element is concentrating on the persons who emerege through the campaign and trying to get a feel for their whims. Especially the king and the heirs, but also powerful generals and important governors.

To do this right one has to approach it with a no-holes-barred kind of mentality. Everything goes - heir assasinations, king assasinations, generals assasinating governors whose titles they covet, etc - what would they have done? Also it helps if you play with green generals and confine yourself to troop production only when your monarch is at 5 or lower influence, since loyalty really soars for new units at higher values.

EDIT: You want low "inherent" loyalty because you want more civil wars. Plain and simple.

Make exceptions to your own rules only when it's needed in order to continue having fun. Boring rules obviously should not be used, the point is to make the game more enjoyable.

[Tony Furze]

Great to see this topic, Roark!

I'm really fascinated by the role playing genre of gaming but I find the ones I have played -Neverwinter for eg-much too individual based and with too much looking around for chests to get gold. MTW has that little bit of flexibilty, that window of opportunity for the imagination to run riot if you're an imaginative player.

I have uninstalled MTW VI at present but my fingers are aching to get that disc back in there! (School begins on Monday and I should really be...etc etc)

A good set of flexible (meaning bendable) rules are needed so you don't take ages for one turn. Then concentration on key characters-in my case they tend not to be the monarchs. Heroes are really good ones for roleplay. Thank goodness emissaries and the like were not given v& v s!

I love roleplaying muslim factions. I follow the pope crusade idea-never attack another muslim faction, unless they attack you. Then you may attack as a warning only-the province must be returned to the faction. Something like that.

Great topic-I'm off to do some shopping with the missus-back sooooooon:2thumbsup:

[m52nickerson]

Here are some suggestions, or at least thing I have done

1. No alliances with factions of another faith
2. If you are a Catholic faction, you must obey the pope.....including crusading requests.
3. No using Inquisitors against other nations.
4. No breaking of alliances, unless it interferes with rule 2
5. Only one unit of knights per army stack.

....and for a true challange

6. When you get the message that a general has died, you must disband his unit.

[Roark]

6. When you get the message that a general has died, you must disband his unit.

Owwwwwwwww...

[m52nickerson]

Owwwwwwwww...

You really have to get on a roll when while you have a good general or two.

[Tony Furze]

That No.6 is a great one, m52nickerson. I've been thinking how unfair it is that a hero general morphs into another general with the same stats. A general's qualities should die with him.

I allow alliances, but not if the other faction is at war with one of my co religionists.

I also allow only one jihad marker at a time. for muslim factions. I'm working on subtleties.

The Knights one is really good , too. I'll adopt that with elite troops.

Roark : "For the hardcore roleplayers, like Tony: How you keep track of everything. (ie: Do you maintain a campaign journal or something similar?)"


This is quite a tough one, and why I was interested in Windowed Mode, as then you can keep notes. Anyhow I make alot of screenshots, especially of key characters stats and then of significant events.It's important to keep track of battles, and I have a rule that all battles must be fought out .(no auto calcing) even if it's 6000 v 16 holed up in a Keep.

Then another important aspect is identifying your "guy" on the battle field. I keep replays of all battles. It's still all in the works at the moment but very fun. The main thing is not to get too sidetracked from the campaign. I once had a little plot/story going on involving an al Mohad Berber Camel gen, his wife , a Prince adulterer and an assassin...guess the story. I became so involved in this sideplot a rebellion occurred in the main campaign.

I love that story of the rise of the humble "unit leader of men-at-arms"!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52041

It can get quite artistic if you're that way inclined:

https://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w217/Claybourn/Egypt/TheEgyptianDynasty2.jpg

[Ironsword]

I have a few I'm trying out at the moment. (I always use the no bribing of garrisons, only stacks and of course, no mercs.)

1) Alliances - As previously mentioned by all...! - I do not break them and adhere to the no cross-religious/unnatural rules. Cease fires are fine though.

2) No agent spamming. I limit myself to only ten worldwide at any one time. (This includes emissaries, spies and assassins.)

3) Prisoner reactions/building construction within a province are stats. and V&V specific. eg. High dread execute all and usually build citadels/town watch etc. Charitible; release all and usually build alehouses, farmland +10% etc. High piety; Churches, chapter houses etc. and also build at least one bishop.

4) To limit player advantages of shipping trade, My ships can only move within three sea regions of a port that I control.

5) Any Mighty warrior/Killer instinct type V&V's mean that the general has to play a leading role in a battle. (ie. does not lurk behind the arbalesters and siege, but commands from the head of the army.)

6) High acumen characters (5+) are the only ones who can use the assassins etc for their own devious ends. This really makes me think in a macchivellian way about who might usurp the throne!

And from now on I'm going to use m52nickerson's dead general, no more unit.

[Tony Furze]

That does it : I'm re installing.

[bondovic]

And from now on I'm going to use m52nickerson's dead general, no more unit.

Now that I think about it, so will I. "Green generals" don't really have that hurt factor.

[Martok]

That does it : I'm re installing.

:laugh4:

[m52nickerson]

That does it : I'm re installing.
I helped bring a sheep back to the fold,:2thumbsup:I can go to bed happy.

[Roark]

eg. High dread execute all and

I dig this, in fact I'm going to apply a rule starting immediately to actively progress my generals down the slippery slope of any evil vice lines they inherit naturally, and watch them become extremists.

Same with virtues, I guess.

:2thumbsup:

I'm still not entirely comfortable with disbanding a dead General's unit... I have enough trouble with finding talented generals as the Turks, who don't seem to have any Heroes in Late. I like to see at least SOME stars on the campaign map...

[m52nickerson]

I'm still not entirely comfortable with disbanding a dead General's unit... I have enough trouble with finding talented generals as the Turks, who don't seem to have any Heroes in Late. I like to see at least SOME stars on the campaign map...

I've only used that rule for a couple campaigns. You get quit good at building up your Royal line so your king is producing 5-6 star heirs. What hurts is framing a 8 star prince to make sure you don't catch the roll over glitch and start getting 1 star morons.

[bondovic]

What hurts is framing a 8 star prince to make sure you don't catch the roll over glitch and start getting 1 star morons.

Roll over glitch? Isn't prince quality dependant on the monarchs influence? And every new monarch starts with kinda low influence? Or is there something here I've missed...:inquisitive:

[Martok]

Roll over glitch? Isn't prince quality dependant on the monarchs influence? And every new monarch starts with kinda low influence? Or is there something here I've missed...:inquisitive:
I believe m52nickerson is referring to the fact that should a 9-star general gain a 10th star, it rolls that general back to a 0-star commander. So he's careful with his highest-ranking generals to make sure that doesn't happen.

EDIT: Gah! You're right, Ironside. The wraparound bug turns them into 0-star generals, not 1-star. :oops:

[bondovic]

I believe m52nickerson is referring to the fact that should a 9-star general gain a 10th star, it rolls that general back to a 1-star commander. So he's careful with his highest-ranking generals to make sure that doesn't happen.

Oh dear. To think I haven't seen this. I must be playing to cautiously.

[Martok]

Heh. That, and the fact that there usually aren't very many 9-star generals running around. ~;) In fairness, it's only ever happened to me once or twice myself, so I wouldn't say it's an extremely common phenomenon.

[m52nickerson]

I've had it happen in one campaign. My King was had 9 stars, and produced a nice 8 star prince, but all the others were 1 star losers. If you have good influence, your king will produce princes right around his command level. So a 9 star king may give you 8, 9, or 1 star princes.

[Ironside]

Huh? They usually comes as 0-star princes for me.

The line can usually repair itself within 2-3 generations if you're forced to have a 0-star king, mainly because his other stats are high enough to keep a high influence. But it still hurts when all your 6 sons end up as 0-star hiers from your 8-star king. :no:

[cutepuppy]

Now that I think about it, so will I. "Green generals" don't really have that hurt factor.

how do you make the green generals thing happen? I've tried it a couple of times, but it doesn't work.

[bondovic]

how do you make the green generals thing happen? I've tried it a couple of times, but it doesn't work.

Try the guide by Frogbeastegg. It's here (http://www.totalwar.org/strategy/twug/A.html), the part about the command lines.

[Tony Furze]

i still haven't installed MTW VI yet...:book:

[m52nickerson]

i still haven't installed MTW VI yet...:book:
For the love of Oden, get to it man!

[Tony Furze]

Okey Dokey...

Now where was I...Nureddin (now Amir uddin, the lazy superstar general) had his eyes on Constantinople from the vantage of Trebizond...

[Martok]

Ooh! A Turkish campaign; haven't seen one of those in a while.

I wish you well as you lead them to glory! :2thumbsup:

[m52nickerson]

Ooh! A Turkish campaign; haven't seen one of those in a while.

I wish you well as you lead them to glory! :2thumbsup:That happens to be the last one I started. It is very seldom the Polish Viking does not lead the mighty polish forces into battle, but since I join the Order of the Camel I felt it was needed.