KotF KOTF OOC Thread [Archive] - Page 5

econ21

09-03-2009, 22:43

This was the screenshot that got me thinking about nerfing bodyguards:

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee86/badlieutenant_bucket/KotF/germany1087/start1087.jpg

Even though Tristan was outnumbered nearly 10:1, the computer thought the battle was even (1:1) because bodyguards are just so formiddable.

That hitpoint thing is a bit over rated.
Those default 2 hit points are not that important actually. Generals do die quite often as we saw in LotR. I myself lost an avatar when I tried to pull off Methodios
More important are those traits and ancillaries that give extra hitpoints.

I don't think the general's hitpoints have a big impact on their unit's combat effectiveness (unless things have gone really bad :sweatdrop:) or their BGs hitpoints have a big impact on their general's survivability. But I am sure the BGs hitpoints have a big impact on their unit's combat effectiveness. I suspect it is why you can charge into spears frontally and walk away almost unscathed - you probably are taking some hits in return, but they are just reducing the 2 HPs to 1 HP.

I can only speak from personal experience, but in most solo campaigns, I have become very cautious in my use of regular (1 HP) heavy cavalry. Yes, it can deal damage. But they also take damage that I find rather painful - I hate to see my elite horsies die. With 2 HP regenerating BGs, you can be more robust. But occasionally, it does bite you in the rear and you lose the main man.

I just talking here - I am ambivalent about changing the stats partway into the game. And nerfing BGs would do nothing to stop the mounted sergeants walking over DFKs that AG and Cecil found depressing. Let's play on and see how it goes when the circle of players fighting battles widens.

_Tristan_

09-03-2009, 23:01

Yes, let us remember that I'm the exception and not the rule... Otherwise, my "prowess" would not be so awe-inspiring...

So should we make a rule to take into account an exception ? Most people seem wary of using their BGs the way I do, a fact I can understand but I've played like this for a long time now... Even with Hugo, in KotR, though with Fritz and Erhart to compete with, it wasn't as noticeable...

It's my way of crating a challenge for me, however small it may be, but at least I have the feeling that my avatar is living on the line... Something that helps me getting into the game...

Do we want to see our Generals die in droves ? For die they will, give them time... Or do we want to see our BGs units become useless or in the same category of lighter cavalry ? I don't think it's a solution...

Let's remember that this game is based on the avatars we're playing... I prefer to see them as heroes of the battlefield (if a bit over the top) than simple grunts, achieving little to die small deaths at the hands of peasants...

Just my :2cents:

Ramses II CP

09-03-2009, 23:23

Truthfully I would like it if we had a R-P-S style counter for our BGs in the AI armies; something the AI could use to force us to bring at least some real troops to a battle. English longbowmen stakes would be perfect... if the AI knew how to use them, because we could counter them, but they create a situation where a charge *cannot* be safely made. Period.

Pikemen could be a similar counter if they worked right and the AI knew how to use them.

Here's what I'd do if I were buffing AI armies: Forget DFKs and assorted infantry of all stripes. Put in high end crossbowmen, archers, a few spearmen, and top off with ample fast cavalry/HA. The kinds of troops that can be countered, but that will cost us casualties even under the best circumstances. Catapults maybe? If the AI would use them to shoot and not hang them out to dry they could force us to engage on unfavorable terms at least.

I dunno, I consider the tactical AI to be rather hopeless. Give them the best of everything and they'll find a way to muck it up. HA is the only surefire way to create mass player casualties, and it's a rather cheap tactic at that.

:egypt:

ULC

09-03-2009, 23:42

Err...there is a way to fix rampant cavalry abuse, without needing to nerf anything - however, it would require greater tactical use of cavalry.

The solution I find is to simply give everything a base cavalry defense of 4-6, give spearmen double that, and give pikemen triple. Thus, when braced, cavalry won't plow through a single unit and decimate it utterly (but still inflict substantial casualties), and spear and pike units can hold steadfast - so long as they stay in formation - and usually rebuke the enemy cavalry.

Thus -

Standard Infantry - +6
Spearmen - +12
Pikemen - +18

Remember, these bonuses will only take effect if the unit is braced, meaning pulling the enemy out and then charging them will be the proper tactic, instead of just plowing through them like a medieval bulldozer on roids.

econ21

09-04-2009, 01:18

I just had a go as Hermant with a BG against a few spears. It was too small an encounter to draw many conclusions, but I am starting to agree with Cecil and Ramses about the AI. It was very sluggish even in re-orienting itself to face me - which was weird, as with only one of my units on the field, I would have thought facing was obvious. The AI only seemed to sharpen up when just one unit was left - it went into schiltron, which surprised me but proved disappointingly ineffective against a charge. The morale of the armored spears held up surprisingly well up - even with a dead leader etc. I did not micro the withdrawals, but did re-charge and suffered some loses.

I still find it odd to see our King and Prince riding around a war zone with nought but a few mounted sergeants, but I guess that's their (royal) perogative.

Vladimir

09-04-2009, 01:50

Well, in a perfect world...

I don't usually micromanage charges. I've lost generals in charges against foot knights. It's up to each player to determine how he enjoys the game the best. Me, I chose chivalrous characters characters because dread is too easy. I hoped this style of game would prove to be more competitive. The Total War series isn't advanced enough to facilitate this.

I really hate even the idea of civil war. Regular war is bad enough. :shame:

OverKnight

09-04-2009, 02:13

Disregard. Where did the king get those mounted sgts from? Yea, I'm starting to agree. One general's bodyguard and two light horse shouldn't be able to win against that force.

Oh, and if that handsome devil requests adoption, I want him. I think I'm willing to let Gontran die for him. :heart:

The mounted sergeants spawned in Paris after we completed a mission. Since they spawned in a Royal holding, they belong to the King.

Generally, since we all have avatars, I think we should refuse adoptions so we can at least try to establish a Capet dynasty with biological children.

Vladimir

09-04-2009, 02:18

I must have missed receiving them as a reward.

I understand the adoption concern. But there may *clears throat* be an exceptional suiter which comes around next turn.

Yea, I did it. I also have nothing to gain by hitting the turn button this year.

TheFlax

09-04-2009, 02:36

But there may *clears throat* be an exceptional suiter which comes around next turn.

But then you would have to deal with me. :whip::evilgrin:

Ignoramus

09-04-2009, 03:03

Here's my two cents.

In KotR, we did not have RBG's. Thus, in the early game, General's Bodyguards were scarce. At that stage, there was no rule in place to recruit RBG's, so the loss of an avatar was devastating to the faction, and to you personally.

Consequently, we saw far fewer massacres of the AI. Heavy cavalry was scarce, and so there were far few exploits on the AI.

Another consequence was the slower pace of expansion. So far, in less that one term, we have conquered Caenarvon, Valencia, Zaragoza, Metz, Bruges, Antwerp, and Staufen - a total of 7 provinces!

In KotR, in Kaiser Heinrich's first term of 20 turns, we have conquered Bern, Hamburg, Metz, and Brandenburg - only 4 provinces in twice the time.

Thus you can already see the vast difference between the two games.

Another point is that the King hasn't assigned any provinces except Metz to Lorraine. It means it is very hard for players like myself to get into the game. What's the point in taking initiative if there's no reward. Also, only 6 people will be able to run for Seneschal next term, which means it will be largely uninteresting for the bulk of the player base.

Vladimir

09-04-2009, 03:09

Well, with a handful of candidates, the politics are far more interesting. I hoped politics would limit our expansion but then the war with the Germans popped up. I'm still kinda "meh" about both the ambush and the "abduction."

:shrug:

ULC

09-04-2009, 03:36

I hope soon to resolve ANY issues ANYONE has with boredom due to politics, soon. Just waiting on one man to get it rolling :wink:.

OverKnight

09-04-2009, 03:37

Valid points, but many can be addressed IC. If you want the pool of candidates to be expanded for Seneschal, have a friendly Duke propose a CA. If you want some the new lands distributed, gather support for an edict calling for that.

Ignoramus has a good point that the replacable nature of avatars might be contributing to in game aggression compared to KotR.

I agree to a certain extent. We have more avatars in the field, the Order for example, and this allows us to expand more. While some people might be more cavalier with their avatars since there will be a replacement in the wings, I'm as careful with Hugues as I was with Otto and Matthias. More so when I'm shepherding other people's avatars. There is a mandated five turn break between avatars in the rules if one is killed.

But I also think that GH as Heinrich curtailed some expansion at the beginning of KotR to focus on development. I also tried to do the same in LotR. Tristan as King has exerted a more expansionistic influence. Granted, he isn't Seneschal, but he did start the war with the Germans. Like the approach or not, it's allowed within the rules.

In individual battles we are winning, however this has not stopped the AI from having several stacks larger and better equipped than our own. Personally, I have hesitated to face them in the open field. So I don't think it's as overmatched as everyone is claiming. If we keep up this pace, we will be checked at some point. Either by other factions dog piling or by excommunication.

GeneralHankerchief

09-04-2009, 04:03

I generally don't blitz as a rule in any of my campaigns. I just followed my usual protocol when I took the first turn as Chancellor in KotR. What's happened here would be considered extremely fast expansion for me.

OverKnight

09-04-2009, 06:42

I'm trying to set up a private social group for Lorraine. The group is up and running, but how do I invite KnightnDay and woad&fangs into it?

Edit: Checked the FAQ, which I should have done in the first place, and got it.

econ21

09-04-2009, 13:27

AussieGiant

09-04-2009, 14:06

I think in the end we have come to a consensus to leave things as it is and just be mindful of the next Seneschal's time in office and further unrestrained expansion.

Tristan is a bit of a freak and in isolation it is not catastrophic to the balance of power. Although if those players currently on the bench turn out to be as good we will have ourselves a real troubling situation.

As they say in Aussie Rules.

"Fair Bump Play On It's Just A Bit Of Claret!!"

Claret = blood.

OverKnight

09-04-2009, 14:23

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do feel challenged. I've got the same back against the wall feeling I had when fighting in the cataclysm. I've been running around like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to prevent the Germans from crossing over the Rhine in force.

We've inflicted losses at Staufen and Dijon, but they're still going strong. There's no way I'd face them in a "fair" fight, unless I had something close to parity in numbers, which hasn't happened yet. If lose my archers I have nothing to replace them with. My only cavalry are the avatars. My best replacement troops would be town militia or peasants. Mercs are a limited and fickle option.

So, I don't think we need an event, at least on my front.

_Tristan_

09-04-2009, 14:36

I am pretty happy with the RBGs and the fast expansion so far. We have to strike a balance between challenge and giving people things to do. It would be frustrating not to have an avatar and sit out several months of the game. I think people are more involved with their characters that they would be if they did not have avatars - there are so many good backstories now posted etc. And given that we do have so many avatars, it would be frustrating to have just five provinces at peace and so have most players twiddling their thumbs without the prospect of advancement. The King now has a decent number of provinces so that each Duchy can bid for them and several Knights can hope to become Counts etc.

The only issue is the level of challenge from the AI. Right now, it's kind of tense because we are over-extended. If we autoresolved our battles, we would fold. There might be a case for a GM "event" soon to bring this home - e.g. a German counter-invasion - and balance things up a little. Also, if we can continue restrain ourselves from fighting England or other factions for a while, it would be good. One war - with Germany - gives us something to do. It's if we start steamrollering everyone, then we will become a superpower and it will become less interesting. Lusted's guidelines were to only fight one faction for the first 50 turns or so, giving the rest time to build up. Germany is not a bad choice for that one faction for France to fight - HRE is big enough to take a beating and not fold immediately. With England, we are so intertwined, it will be hard to sustain a prolonged war. However, I'd like to see us try. Personally, I'd rather see this game depict a hard fought 100 year war with England than swiftly create a new Roman Empire - at least for a while. This would no doubt require some GM intervention.

My thoughts on the game so far almost mirrors yours, Econ...

The reason why I laucnhed ionto the war against the HRE was :

1/ to provide some of our avatars something to do.

2/ to provide challenge by stretching our resources. We all know that the AI on the battlemaps lacks in a lot of departments but providing challenge on the Campaign map, which I hope Philippe did compensated for that.

My last moves politically also tend towards what Econ has been broaching though the 100-years war will certainly be fought against the HRE rather than against England. And we could certainly do with a "backlash" event should we continue our expansion at such a pace.

I also tried, IC, to throw every possible obstacle in our way (preventing recruitment, encouraging non-military buildings,...) while creating fun battles for myself and others I hope.

And don't you worry about land allotment, Philippe will begin the lottery soon :juggle2:

Maybe it would be time to make your wishlist to Santa Claus :san_cool:

GeneralHankerchief

09-04-2009, 19:59

Tristan, you besieged Franfurt with the HRE Emperor who was in it.

At ratio 3:7 against, he seems to think he has a chance against you and 2 regiments of mounted sargents.

I guess he was wrong. Happy slaughtering, it would be sporting if you could take some casualties.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=199&id=4992

:sweatdrop:

Vladimir

09-04-2009, 21:14

I do love the definition of "sporting." :grin:

OverKnight

09-05-2009, 01:42

Isn't time for a new Conseil Session? If we want to emulate LotR, they should be every 10 turns/15 years. Of course we had one year of just RGB recruitment, but if we want to keep Conseil Sessions on years with a five or a zero, we should start one now.

IE:

1080
1095
1110
1125
1140

This would make it easier to track. Or we could have the Session at the end of this year before hitting end of turn.

Edit: Actually, starting the Session after we've all moved but before the end of turn button is pressed would be what I recommend. AG gets a full term, but we still get round numbers.

Vladimir

09-05-2009, 02:28

Keep in mind it's an important holiday weekend in the US.

AussieGiant

09-05-2009, 08:06

Based on OK post I'd like to finish off this turn and hand the save in 1096 to the next person.

That would be ten full turns under governorship as I got the save in 1081.

That might change the timing of the Council a bit.

Thoughts?

OverKnight

09-05-2009, 08:16

I'd suggest finishing all player actions for 1095, including Seneschal moves and such, and then hold a Conseil session. The new Seneschal can press end turn, so he can have the benefit of watching the AI moves and the pop ups.

Edit: Don't mind Hugues, he's just whinging a bit.

AussieGiant

09-05-2009, 08:37

Yeah I would go with that.

I think you have a pretty valid case in the game. :2thumbsup:

econ21

09-05-2009, 09:34

AussieGiant

09-05-2009, 10:28

Despite AG heading his reports with the turn number, I totally lost track and did not realise we are about to have a Conseil session. He seemed just to be getting started. I guess that's the secret of a good performer - always leave them wanting more! :bow:

It's the sincere fake skill.

From my perspective I had exactly the same impression.

Suddenly, I'm like; "Damn I need to write up a summary...already?!"

econ21

09-05-2009, 11:16

Just had a look at the save and noticed Gaetan stalking the Prince. He seems to have acquired the "Swift to Judge trait", viz "Makes hasty and often unfair decisions over the people". :laugh4: Do I detect Zim's hand in this or is the AI way smarter than we think?

OverKnight

09-05-2009, 11:20

Oh dear. . .maybe Gaetan was dropped off at Marseille and it's a coincidence. Perhaps he's heading toward Hermant to have a quiet word about drugging unsuspecting friends.

Hugues got "sadly ignorant" himself, seems fitting now.

Sorry to storm out in the middle of your well reasoned and rational response econ.

AussieGiant

09-05-2009, 12:07

*sarcasm on*

Tristan....

exposed...

what game are we playing?

Have we switched to chequers while I was away?

:egypt:

Ramses II CP

09-05-2009, 16:32

I have a fair bit of writing to catch up on. I'm hoping to get the Marseille battle up today, and at least make a start on the Gaetan explanation. The Council session will hopefully give me some time to get it all in place and making sense.

There *is* an explanation for Gaetan popping up at Marseille and it'll all come together soon. I hope. :yes:

:egypt:

Cecil XIX

09-05-2009, 17:40

I noticed Mandorf is now Kaiser... Glad it's one of the original six.

OverKnight

09-05-2009, 17:50

Freaky, I'm sure this adds further insult to injury for GH considering the. . .spirited relationship Max and Heinrich had in KotR.

Mandorf must have been adopted by Henry and became heir when the Prince died.

Fingers crossed on Kaiser Otto. :sweatdrop:

GeneralHankerchief

09-05-2009, 18:02

Somehow, the Pope had a hand in this.

OverKnight

09-05-2009, 18:13

Exactly. Isn't it interesting how we were told to cease hostilities only after Heinrich was dead?

We're through the looking glass here people.

ULC

09-05-2009, 18:50

This is all to convenient...and proof that chaos is not quite as chaotic as one would expect.

I blame it on Random.Org :laugh4: - I am seriously thinking of starting a cult based on it, because I have never received random results, ever, that did not have "coincidental" implications.

Ramses II CP

09-05-2009, 20:00

Okay, the battle report for Marseille is up. I hope it makes sense, wrote it rather quickly. :laugh4:

:egypt:

GeneralHankerchief

09-05-2009, 21:28

Has anyone heard from mini recently? It shows his last login date as a couple of days ago, but he did not vote in the previous Conseil session, and with Henri of age, his presence will be sorely missed.

Ramses II CP

09-05-2009, 22:47

Nothing from him. I figure he'll pop back soon, I think he was in one of the hotseats before wasn't he?

We can definitely use another royal running around. Do we have a close out time on the save? I need to do HA's moves sometime. Hopefully tonight.

:egypt:

AussieGiant

09-05-2009, 23:00

The save is open.

In fact Zim needs to convene the next Council session after all the moves are done. I will move tomorrow and then I'm finished.

Ramses II CP

09-06-2009, 05:02

Done. I'll probably be out of touch all day tomorrow and most of Monday, going to Dragon Con. Don't pass any legislation without me. :laugh4:

:egypt:

Zim

09-06-2009, 06:30

I'll be visiting family tomorrow then working a graveyard shift, but I'll be able to get the Council open on Monday barring any emergencies.

Braden

09-06-2009, 10:56

Looking to join here shortly, if you'll have me of course :yes:

Just got a full PC again after years in the wilderness and uploading patches, mods etc for this one (Kingdoms on its way in the post).

I'll also have to get back to grips with actually playing this game!

Anyway, hope you'll have me in the next few weeks.

Ituralde

09-06-2009, 11:47

Hey Braden!

Glad to have you back! Thanks to you playing in the House of Austria got way more interesting way faster than I expected back in KotR!

Braden

09-06-2009, 14:07

Thanks, shame I didnt have the appropriate PC power to continue that game..now I've got something that'll run M2:TW at max everything! taken me a year or so to get round to building it but for less than £250 (including the lurrverly 22" Widescreen monitor), I'm not complaining.

Just started an M2 campaign and waiting on Kingdoms in the post so should be able to join from next week onwards.

econ21

09-06-2009, 16:05

Welcome back, Braden! I hope you get a chivalrous character - the Order of the Fleurs de Lys could use some more members, now that we lost Gaetan.

GeneralHankerchief

09-06-2009, 16:57

woad&fangs

09-06-2009, 17:42

I already told OK this, but I'll let the rest of you know too. I just started college so please forgive Bertin if he isn't very active for this week.

OverKnight

09-06-2009, 17:42

Woah, did the King just throw the Seneschal under the bus, or what?

Damn that's cold. :laugh4:

Welcome back Braden, I don't think we worked together too much in KotR, but I look forward to it now.

GeneralHankerchief

09-06-2009, 17:49

As a request, could we possibly put all future battle screenshots in spoiler tags? Right now there are only 14 posts in the thread (and some of them are still placeholders), but the length is already massive.

_Tristan_

09-06-2009, 18:01

Something I used to do in KotR and LotR but followed the trend here...

Now it's done...

_Tristan_

09-06-2009, 18:10

Could we allow a few days before the start of the next Conseil to allow everybody to make their bid for land ?

I've received some bids already and answered them mostly but there are still some missing from what I would expect...

OverKnight

09-06-2009, 18:21

Zim mentioned starting the next Session on Monday. Not enough time for horse trading?

@GH, my reports now have the pics spoilered.

GeneralHankerchief

09-06-2009, 18:58

Thanks guys. :bow:

AussieGiant

09-06-2009, 19:12

*Getting out from under the bus.* :balloon2:

I'll spoil mine from the Seneschal reports soon.

Ibn-Khaldun

09-06-2009, 19:57

Could someone tell me howw old Charles is at the moment?

I think he should be 13-14 but I'm not quite sure. :embarassed:

OverKnight

09-06-2009, 20:06

He is 13. A few more turns, 5 perhaps? The whole aging ratio issue with M2, particularly since it's 1.5 years a turn in LTC, makes my brain hurt.

If we don't hear from mini, perhaps you could take Henri if you're impatient?

Ibn-Khaldun

09-06-2009, 20:19

I have big plans(:evilgrin:) for Charles and I don't want to switch character now..

Braden

09-06-2009, 22:16

Oh wow, talk about another blast from the past! Welcome back, Braden! :medievalcheers:

Mon General..time for us oldies to have a group hug? .~:grouphug:

so far so good re-learning the game, just need to find all the downloads that we're using here. One was a .rar file (no good for me).

:book:

AussieGiant

09-07-2009, 08:06

*Looking at everyone else except the "new" old comer*

So who is this Braden guy?

:egypt:

Ituralde

09-07-2009, 08:10

*Takes AussieGiant aside*

Well son, it went like this. He taught me everything I know. Then I taught you everything I knew and then you turned into the most evil Dread Knight ever imagined. So a job well done, wouldn't you say!

AussieGiant

09-07-2009, 08:26

*Off to one side, AussieGiant's eye's widen at the discription.*

"Bloody hell, this guy must be ancient then?

GeneralHankerchief

09-07-2009, 08:31

*Off to one side, AussieGiant's eye's widen at the discription.*

"Bloody hell, this guy must be ancient then?

IIRC, he bowed out just as you came in. Big player in WotS; the guy wrote the original torture story and took part in the first-ever Throne Room PvP battle.

deguerra

09-07-2009, 09:02

IIRC, he bowed out just as you came in. Big player in WotS; the guy wrote the original torture story and took part in the first-ever Throne Room PvP battle.

go figure. I always assumed AG had spawned from the depths of hell before there even was a PBM :clown:

edit: Hi Branden!!

OverKnight

09-07-2009, 09:03

Historical records from that time are hit or miss, but here's some info:

Character (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1158924&postcount=18)
Senate Deliberations IV (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70759)
Civil War Stories (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73592)
Battle of Ancrya (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74303)

It's been a while since I reviewed WotS, but Manius was one of the more tragic characters in the Civil War.

go figure. I always assumed AG had spawned from the depths of hell before there even was a PBM :clown:

AG started as an unnamed Austrian elector and "Merchant of Venice". The character resembled Alain (without an accent) more than Arnold in my opinion. Wine, women and song rather than blood, black cloaks and dread. Otto and he were always trading casks of wine or ale from the latest conquests.

_Tristan_

09-07-2009, 09:07

Should make the land alotment post around noon today... I need to have a look at the save first, something which I cannot do from work...

OverKnight

09-07-2009, 09:56

Tristan, it looks like you may have double posted in the Stories Thread.

Interesting one by the way. :2thumbsup:

Ituralde

09-07-2009, 11:06

So I finally got around to installing Kingdoms & Co on my computer. I also put the KotF Mod on top of it. For some reason it won't create the shortcuts for me. Or they don't appear, I don't know which is the case.

Either way my question now is whether those shortcuts are truly needed?
I just loaded the most recent save KotF1095-3 and Bodyguard Recruitment is at one Florin like it's supposed to be. So am I all set or will I wreak havoc if I continue to start up the game via the Lands to Conquer shortcut?

Also I didn't know that Henri was 17 already. Time to get him active!

Andres

09-07-2009, 11:50

Just an early announcement that I'll be afk from September 14th until September 25th for a well deserved vacation in Spain (Andalusia).

econ21

09-07-2009, 12:08

One was a .rar file (no good for me).

You can freely download an evaluation copy of WinRar that will unpack the .rar file.

_Tristan_

09-07-2009, 12:25

Even in death the hate for his father still burned. The Kings words on echoed in his mind.

And I had to go and wake the Dragon ...:wizard:

_Tristan_

09-07-2009, 14:41

Tristan, it looks like you may have double posted in the Stories Thread.

Interesting one by the way. :2thumbsup:

Glad you liked it...I hope this one (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2329932&postcount=53) and the next (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2329933&postcount=54) shed a bit of light to what happened behind the scene in the Kingdom these past few years :inquisitive:

OverKnight

09-07-2009, 18:54

And I had to go and wake the Dragon ...:wizard:

Even worse. . .you woke the Poodle!

Nothing a came of catch or taking him to a football game won't resolve.

@AG did you want Alain's story before or after the King's criticism in the Conseil? I used the date in the story, 1093, which is before this.

AussieGiant

09-07-2009, 19:02

Even worse. . .you woke the Poodle!

Nothing a came of catch or taking him to a football game won't resolve.

@AG did you want Alain's story before or after the King's criticism in the Conseil? I used the date in the story, 1093, which is before this.

After. I should use 1095 hey?

OverKnight

09-07-2009, 19:04

Yup, we were in 1095 when Alain was defenestrated.

I'll change the position of the story.

Braden

09-07-2009, 20:38

go figure. I always assumed AG had spawned from the depths of hell before there even was a PBM :clown:

edit: Hi Branden!!

No worries mate (special that for our Aussie friend). :laugh4:

Now to install free .rar "unzipper-thingy"...Kingdoms was posted off today so I might be asking to join you next week.

Tonights task is to save all the info and "story so far" as either .txt or .word files so I can catch up...and, oh yeah...the torture scene in WotS, remember toning that down significantly for general consumption from the first draft! :evil:

AussieGiant

09-07-2009, 20:54

I've been able to push the boundries IC with some of the board rules.

A good torture scene could be possible now. :beam:

ULC

09-07-2009, 21:04

Arg! Ramses, Tristan! My PM Box is half-empty you know! I can receive the darned things!

*grumbles*

Braden

09-07-2009, 21:19

I've been able to push the boundries IC with some of the board rules.

A good torture scene could be possible now. :beam:

Can I get a "Muhahahahahah!" anyone? :2thumbsup:

Ramses II CP

09-08-2009, 00:04

I'm buried right now, haven't even caught up on all my reading. Dragon Con was this weekend and I live in Atlanta, so... :yes:

It'll come when it comes. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

ULC

09-08-2009, 00:29

I'm buried right now, haven't even caught up on all my reading. Dragon Con was this weekend and I live in Atlanta, so... :yes:

It'll come when it comes. :2thumbsup:

:egypt:

:sigh: :juggle2:

Ignoramus

09-08-2009, 03:32

How do I get the Order's Coat of arms to the left of my signature, like econ and Ituralde?

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 07:30

I think the poor Counseil bureaucrat is overworked. I'm sure he means the 10th of September not August!

You get the signature with those handy little commands:
["FLEFT"] ... ["/FLEFT"] for things that go left
["FRIGHT"] ... ["/FRIGHT"] for things that go left
And if you want to put something in between just use ["CENTER"]...["CENTER"]

All without the encompassing "..." of course.

_Tristan_

09-08-2009, 08:19

One question for our GM : What do we do of some of our avatars whose players are AWOL ? AFK for good ?

I was thinking about Pierre de St Germain (everyone : never voted and his last post in forum was tochoose his avatar, never posted once since anywhere on the forum) and Loup de Gisors (Beskar : never voted, posts regularly everywhere on the forums but almost never in here) ?

It is just that with the power of our BGs and the benefits on public order they can give, I think we should avoid having too much of them unused at one time.

And what of Prince Henri ? Do we seek to replace mini with a new player, provided we can find one ?

Thoughts ?

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 08:28

We always had the rule that you lose your position after not voting in two consecutive Council Sessions. So that should take care of the first two. Whether this means just parking the avatars somewhere or getting rid of them entirely is up to the GM, I think.

Prince Henri of course is another matter. It would take a long time for those two Councils to pass. Has anyone PMed mini yet? Also, are there any players willing to take Henri? It would be a shame if a member of the Imperial family was left playerless.

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 08:40

The rule Ituralde speaks of is in this current set. So they should be out.

There certainly needs to be a culling as the RBG's are scattered throughout the Kingdom at 1 florin upkeep. They are certainly worth more than that in the game.

As for Henri...we need someone to play him, he's too important not to.

ULC

09-08-2009, 08:40

~:mecry:

I feel bored to tears right now

econ21

09-08-2009, 10:25

I feel bored to tears right now

These games are long hauls - typically lasting a year - so hang in there.

However, I will be glad to see Gaetan resurface - although I am not sure Hermant will be accepting any drinks from him.

:creep:

ULC

09-08-2009, 10:44

These games are long hauls - typically lasting a year - so hang in there.

However, I will be glad to see Gaetan resurface - although I am not sure Hermant will be accepting any drinks from him.

:creep:

Coward - shows how much you know Gaetan.

econ21

09-08-2009, 10:46

Coward - shows how much you know Gaetan.

I was trying to be humourous (a reference to the spiked ale). Hermant would be delighted to hear from Gaetan whenever he resurfaces. ~:grouphug:

ULC

09-08-2009, 10:48

I was trying to be humourous (a reference to the spiked ale). Hermant would be delighted to hear from Gaetan whenever he resurfaces. ~:grouphug:

I have a story that should be up soon, give you an idea of his current state of mind.

Ignoramus

09-08-2009, 10:53

I think it will pick up in this Seneschal's term. First terms are typically quiet, without too much intrigue, mainly because not many people have land or power and rivalries have not yet developed.

_Tristan_

09-08-2009, 10:54

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 11:10

Bit of a clincher there.

Just had a look at the rules.
Hm, the way I read it, all provinces that weren't ratified through Edict 1.2 currently belong to no one. At least it isn't clearly specified in the rules itself. The fact that they only pass into the King's Demesne after they are ratified by an Edict means they are owned by someone else. If you read on the conqueror can refuse to give a ratified to the King. Which can mean that the province belongs to the conqueror until ratified. I believe King Phillip conquered Antwerp, so it would be his. The only question would be whether you can give away unratified provinces? The rules aren't too clear on the whole issue.

I think the spirit of the rule was that you can't do anything with the province until ratified. This would also put a questionmark on all the other unratified provinces Phillip has already given away. I think the best option would be to just let it stand and have it dealt with IC. The King decides on rule disputes, let him make a decision:

A: provinces can only be given away if ratified
B: provinces can be given away, even if that can lead to an unlanded Seneshal, who has to give up the unratified province he just got the position of Seneshal with.

or C. Whatever the King wants! :juggle2:

econ21

09-08-2009, 11:19

On a side note, a technicality : Antwerp has not yet been ratified by an Edict as it was German-held at the time of conquest, so technically, the Order has only been promised it... So does it enable the Captain of the Order to run for Senechal under the condition that Antwerp be ratified in this session of the Conseil ? Or does it disqualify him ?

Um, I missed this subtlety.

I am little hazy on the game rules, but from what you had said earlier, I think Zim intended that the conqueror of the province owns it until it is ratified - at which point, it passes into the King's holdings and can be allocated. Applying that to Antwerp, I would say that Antwerp belonged to the King from the moment of conquest by virtue of his having personally conquered it. So he could allocate it prior to ratification. But I agree with the Ituralde, it's a grey area that it might be best to solve IC.

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 11:21

B's pretty impactful as it relates to the ability to run for Seneschal only after you get land. That is outlined in another part of the rules.

We need a ruling on that and the rest as land acquisition is pretty important and it would be good if we all understood the process clearly so we can make informed IC decisions.

Based on the past edicts, all rebel provinces taken in the last period were ratified. Therefore they are part of the King Demesne and are free to be handed out. No noble has refused to do that so the process goes forward.

All previous German holdings need to be ratified and if they have via edict in this session then they are also part of the King Demesne as soon as this session is finished and then the "dealing" of them can be made.

Again no noble has refused to prevent this from happening.

Was Antwerp rebel or german? If it was rebel then it can be handed out. It it was German it can be handed out by the King as soon as the session is finished AND there is an edict ratifiying it in the edicts.

That is how I understood the rules.

econ21

09-08-2009, 11:36

You don't buy my argument that the King owns Antwerp prior to ratification by right of conquest? I thought we agreed conqueror's hold their conquests until ratification - this was explained to me by Tristan:

...Zim seemed to consider that the hand-over should be handled at the next council session and that until that time the province belonged to the conquering noble. Then it was either ratified and went to the King or became the start of a civil war, or was handed back to its rightful owner through lack of ratification.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2327706&postcount=977

So if we agree the King owned Antwerp by right of conquest, surely he could transfer ownership before ratification?

That argument stands or falls regardless of the edict authorising taking rebel settlements. However, if people don't buy that argument, you could make the case that the edict authorised taking Antwerp because at the time of the edict, Antwerp was - I believe - rebel. [Maybe I am wrong that Antwerp was rebel at the time of the edict (but it starts vanilla M2TW as rebel).]

Based on the past edicts, all rebel provinces taken in the last period were ratified.

I think the edict covered "neighbouring" rebel provinces, so there is an issue of interpretation regarding Caernarvon and Antwerp.

Was Antwerp rebel or german?

Another issue of interpretation is the timing. I think Antwerp was rebel at the time of the edict (and I forgot it was German at the time of conquest, hence my jumping the gun earlier). So you could make a case that the edict covered provinces that were rebel at the time of the edict.

Personally, I think my "King's by right of conquest" argument is the relevant one though.

ULC

09-08-2009, 11:36

I always saw it as the person conquering holding it, whether it be the King or not, and it being personally theirs, although nothing can be done with it until it was ratified and made part of the Royaume/Kingdom.

In such a sense, yes it is the Kings to handout, but until it is ratified, it cannot be considered land for the qualification for the post of Seneschal.

econ21

09-08-2009, 11:44

I always saw it as the person conquering holding it, whether it be the King or not, and it being personally theirs, although nothing can be done with it until it was ratified and made part of the Royaume/Kingdom.

But where does it say "nothing can be done with it"? It says you can't recruit nor put taxes below high. But there is nothing about transferring ownership. I think it's a grey area, but I would allow transfer.

My preference would be for us to decide this in character rather than by an OOC adjudication of what the rules mean. (By all means amend or clarify the game rules afterward to make them reflect the IC decision.) The reason is that I think this rule reflects "politics" rather than "physics". If Gaspard is denied a chance to run for the second time - this time for a "technicality" - then there are clearly political consequences and ruling him out on OOC grounds feels a little odd.

ULC

09-08-2009, 11:47

Oh no, I do mean you could transfer it - but as it was not a part of the Kingdom, it could not be used to determine who could or could not run for Seneschal.

econ21

09-08-2009, 12:03

Oh no, I do mean you could transfer it - but as it was not a part of the Kingdom, it could not be used to determine who could or could not run for Seneschal.

The game rules say a Baron "Must have personal control of a province"; there's nothing about it being ratifed or it "part of the Kingdom". I think it's a grey area and the rules as written do not prevent the King giving Antwerp to Gaspard if he wants to and Gaspard running for Seneschal. If the King doesn't want to do that - for legalistic or other reasons - that's fine too.

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 12:04

I think we've covecer it from every OOC angle now. The only decision that remains now if we carry this over to IC and then maybe clarify the rules. Or do we do it all OOC and have an OOC vote on it.

I state again my preference for this to be settled through IC politics. Much more interesting than resolving into some lawyer feud OOC.

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 12:08

I agree with you Econ.

The unique situation with the King taking a province is that it is his and therefore is in the Kings Demesne straight away and ready to be handed out.

The two issues you bring up are also valid.

Caernarvon and Antwerp are certainly not exactly to the letter of the law of the edict as they were not bordering.

The interesting thing about Antwerp is that it started rebel, went to the Germans. It's a stronger case to mention because it was not bordering and it was german at the time of conquest.

All this can be done IC. But it might seem a little strange randomly bringing it up for no IC reason.

Ignoramus

09-08-2009, 12:08

Anyway, if there is a rule dispute, then the king has the call. So if the rule is ambiguous, then it's up to Tristan to decide.

I had wondered about this, but considered it alright as no one in the Order had mentioned it while discussing whether I'd run or not.

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 13:08

Again I certainly agree Igno,

There have been many things done which if challenged would probably have held. If no one complains then that is part of the IC aspect to it.

There is a risk involved.

You don't want to annoy the King for example. Leave that to others and make sure you're working behnid the scenes.

Ignoramus

09-08-2009, 13:28

Thanks for the signature advice, Ituralde! I finally got it to work to my satisfaction.

GeneralHankerchief

09-08-2009, 13:34

The proposed amendment could be abused by an adventuresome Seneschal. For example if we somehow acquired Scotland in a trade, even if no one but the Seneschal wished to acquire it, under this proposal, the new lands would automatically be part of the Realm.

Yes, something like this would never happen. Scotland of all places! But I use the example to show my point.

Well done. :laugh4:

OverKnight

09-08-2009, 13:40

Being the game Historian has its advantages. :wink:

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 13:46

I don't think anyone could forget that! :beam:

ULC

09-08-2009, 13:47

I hope it passes - this way, when I am Seneschal, I'll buy Moscow and Novgorod, for personal reasons and issues of National Security 800 years from now.

OverKnight

09-08-2009, 14:46

800 years? We'll already be in the Urals.

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 15:02

Not even close OK. We'd be in down town Tokyo trying not to get drunk on sake.

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 15:25

Might as well get that thing rolling.

Vladimir

09-08-2009, 15:28

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 15:31

It's never to late to change the rules via a Rule Change.
Not sure about the formalities of it though. I think we would discuss it here and then Zim would put it to an OOC vote.

OverKnight

09-08-2009, 16:02

I was bored:

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb88/douglaslain/hugues95.jpg

Anachronistic but fun.

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 16:08

That's pretty funny OK.

_Tristan_

09-08-2009, 16:11

And who will be my Sarah Palin ?

GeneralHankerchief

09-08-2009, 16:19

Tristan, I've got to say, you're doing this King thing the right way. I mean, good God. ~:eek:

_Tristan_

09-08-2009, 16:25

I hope to keep you entertained...:whip:

OverKnight

09-08-2009, 16:27

GeneralHankerchief

09-08-2009, 16:28

Tristan, traditionally, and I mean no offense, if the King wishes to assume the executive, he makes this known before the session begins. Rather than letting his poor misunderstood vassals humiliate themselves publicly. :laugh4:

See, that's the thing. I don't think he's assuming the office. I think he's running for it. :hide:

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 16:30

I feel like I'm in question time in the English parliament.

Keep the elbows high and out gentlemen, it's power politics at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBvryavwV0w&feature=related

OverKnight

09-08-2009, 16:31

Where's the Reign of Terror when you need it? :furious3: :wink:

Ituralde

09-08-2009, 16:35

This is definetly interesting... :2thumbsup:

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 16:45

...and holds some risk eventually.

OverKnight

09-08-2009, 16:51

Well I've just gone from Obama to Nader. . .

Option 1. Lose election. . .look like a moron.

Option 2. Win election. . .make boss very angry. Make future boss, if I make it that long, even angrier.

Option 3. Defect to the Russians.

Hmmm. . .

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 17:09

Indeed, the dilemma.

Braden

09-08-2009, 20:24

Got most of the updates and mods installed now. The only one I can't get installed is the KotF source mod 1.4...can't see an .exe file in the .rar version I've downloaded.

Advice?

I have to also thank you for the very nice and warm welcome back to PBM gaming *sniff* I’m very emotional now…thank you all.

Next, I have to make sure you all know that I’ve been completely out of the picture (i.e. NO gaming with any Total War series games) since leaving here and my subsequent PC failures.

With that in mind, I will be pushing myself hard to re-learn how to play the game effectively. My Role-Playing skills haven’t been effected though as I’ve kept role playing, PBeM gaming (freeform stuff like the Star Trek Ascension game) and Live Role playing as always.

I don’t expect any special treatment of any kind (not that I expect you’ll give me any) and I want to start on the bottom rung here.

To those players who don’t know me from before, I’m looking forward to playing alongside (and in this game potentially against!) you. Take me as you find me and act as you normally would do towards me.

I’m joining as a new player only when I feel I’m ready to hold my own amongst the continuing quality of players in the Throne Room. That said, I’ll formally join as soon as I can!

AussieGiant

09-08-2009, 21:22

I vote we just throw Barden into the deep end and have him take over Henri.

mini has not been around for ages and we really need someone to please the young fellow.

:2thumbsup:

GeneralHankerchief

09-08-2009, 21:30

I vote we just throw Barden into the deep end and have him take over Henri.

mini has not been around for ages and we really need someone to please the young fellow.

:2thumbsup:

I second that. (Re)baptism by fire! :charge:

econ21

09-08-2009, 22:02

I second that.

I will be the second seconder! :bow:

deguerra

09-09-2009, 00:03

Me three.

Also can I be Frenchie's Palin?

https://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5574/rallin.jpg

Cecil XIX

09-09-2009, 01:28

Damn you and your image editing skills, deg. :wall:

OverKnight

09-09-2009, 05:11

Christophe de Perronne sits quietly, listening to the discussions and nodding briefly whenever Prince Louis speaks. However, upon hearing the mention of "brigandry" in the Prince's proposed Edict, he freezes in place and glaces around the room, warily. After a few moments of silent contempation, he speaks.

I second Edict 1.2.

Just noticed this on review of the Conseil thread. Well thought out TC considering the stories came out later. :2thumbsup:

Also can I be Frenchie's Palin?

https://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5574/rallin.jpg

That is disturbing, doncha know.

Zim

09-09-2009, 06:17

OverKnight

09-09-2009, 07:41

Looking at the rules, it doesn't seem as if Rule Changes needed to be seconded, only Edicts and Amendments. But Zim might know better. In previous games OOC rule changes required seconds if I remember correctly.

The rules:

4. - Government

(a) - Sessions: The Council of the Realm (Conseil du Royaume) will meet in a Normal Session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each Normal and Emergency Session consists of 3 real time days of debate, followed by 2 real time days of voting. Zim or anyone delegated by him can change the length of individual sessions at will.

(b) - Proposing Legislation: During each session, Nobles may propose Edicts and Amendments, up to the limit allowed by their rank. Edicts and Amendments must be seconded by two other Nobles before they can be put to the vote.

(c) - Edicts: Edicts require a simple majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect until the next normal session of the Council. Tied Edicts fail. If contradictory Edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority. Edicts can only be enforced by IC means. Edicts cannot contradict the Game Rules.

(d) - Codex Amendments: Amendments require a two-thirds majority of weighted votes to pass and remain in effect permanently, or until repealed by another Codex Amendment. Codex Amendments can only be enforced by IC means. Codex Amendments cannot contradict the Game Rules.

(e) - Rule Changes: Rule Changes require a two-thirds majority of unweighted votes (1 vote per player) to pass. Rule Changes can permanently change the Game Rules. Any player can propose Rule Changes, regardless of IC rank. Zim can veto any proposed Rule Change, but does not vote. Game Rules are enforced by IC or OOC means, as Zim sees fit.

Ituralde

09-09-2009, 07:59

It doesn't even say that they have to be proposed during Council Sessions, although that is the obvious place for them. I think we should just put them up here in the OOC thread, so that the IC interaction in the Council isn't interrupted by OOC discussion.

econ21

09-09-2009, 08:53

Please excuse my ignorance but is it possible to amend rule 5d to remove the reference to general's bodyguards. This may be too late now but counting bodyguards as heavy cavalry should make the battles more challenging.

I think I proposed this at the time that the rule was drafted but now I would prefer that we leave things as they are. Including BGs would cause problems for the Order fighting as a company - we have been aiming at 4 knights in the Company, so could only fight if the stack exceeded 10. This would be a problem to us acting alone, as we probably will have very little foot. And it would greatly limit our ability to act in support of another player - for example, we could not join a Duc who was already supported by one fellow knight.

This is not a purely self-interested argument - the whole idea of the Order OOC was to create something for our masses of RBGs to do. They don't have land, they don't have armies and they can't run for Seneschal. Stopping them even fighting in other people's battles would be even more constraining.

In terms of keeping the battles challenging, counting BGs would have done nothing to stop Tristan and Ramses stellar victories - they have been kicking the AI often with just one BG and a few scraps. The Order Company has often been unemployed - not participating in the King's battles as Tristan wanted to challenge himself. OK has not been fighting with an excessive number of BGs either.

Ignoramus

09-09-2009, 09:01

I think a far more effective solution, is make BG units consist of 7 men, as is done in BC. That way, it seriously imperils the life of the general if he charges headlong into the fray.

Of course, the AI may then just throw its generals away, but...

Braden

09-09-2009, 18:48

Welcome Braden. I have just sent a pm to Mini to see if he is still playing Henri. If I don't hear a response soon you're welcome to take him. Otherwise I can get an RGB recruited for you whenever you'd like, or you can wait for some other fm to come of age (might be a while, though). :yes:

Edit: I'd be happy to put up a poll for that rule change Vladimir suggested. We're tied for the largest faction in the game (or did we pass the ERE the past couple turns?) so we should be well able to recruit armies without needing more than one or two RGBs in them.

Thanks! I'm nearly ready for this mod now, tested my skills as the difficulty settings...just need to work out how to install the KotF mini-mod and to check that the personal mods (removing green triangles, big flags etc) won't conflict and I'm good to go!

Also, don't appear to have the line "showbanners - 1" in my .cgc file for some reason at all, though the large flags are present...want rid!! :furious3:

Any info on these two matters (installing the mini-mod KotF and the missing line from my preferences) would be most welcome by PM.

Joining you soon...as for dropping me in at the deepend...judging by my performance so far on my test game I'll do surprisingly well (must be like riding a bike!).

Ibn-Khaldun

09-09-2009, 22:28

That "show_banners = 1" line is in the [video] section of the .cfg file.

Vladimir

09-10-2009, 00:19

Hey guys (and princess :flirt: ). I PM'd Zim a couple questions and he suggested I post it here. What do you think about generating small rebel stacks and IC traits for RL events?

I try to take Gontran out for walks every now and again to avoid the negative traits gained from sitting around. Since we have a large number of bodyguard units, does anyone object to the creation of small rebel stacks so generals can avoid the same thing?

Or

What about IC traits for RL actions? TinCow is going to Rome for a while, so maybe his character should get a pilgrim to Rome trait. I'm going to play soldier for a couple weeks and would like my character to gain a minor military trait. Other characters can do the same. It would require that the player be away from the game from a week or two due to extenuating circumstances.

Or, the bonus

IC traits for IC actions. A lot of characters like to drink, so maybe they should get one of the "Gets Merry" traits. If they exhibit more of the same behavior, they should continue down the line. This would also improve the, um, motivation for some wacky IC fun.

Me, I'm enjoying a few beers on an empty stomach because aLCOHol will be verboten for most of September. :barrell:

What say you? :knight:

econ21

09-10-2009, 00:37

My preference is to play the game as it is, otherwise there is a danger we turn from playing the AI to trying to "play" the GM to get good stuff for our characters. I don't see any basis for basing IC traits on RL actions. I can see traits for IC actions being ok - the swift to judge for Gaetan being a good example - but again would like to see them used rather sparingly. Unexpected rewards for startingly role-playing as opposed to things we script our role-playing to attain. I remember being infuriated by the high spawn of rebels in solo play of RTW, so presumably we should see some crop up naturally in game.

All that said, I would not be opposed to a more major GM created event. We were promised no more than one per 10 turns, so I figure we may see one within the next session unless things go pear shaped on their own.

I do sympathise with a governor's life potentially being dull - maybe some kind of rotation of duty could be organised? That's what I would like to see in the Order, if we ever get the numbers to carry it out. Or you could try to mix things up - holding a tournament in your town for example. I seem to remember some RL discussion about crusades being used as an outlet to rid of unemployed troublesome warriors - the idea is starting to look relevant to our game, IMO. It should not be long before a proper in-game crusade is a possibility.

Cultured Drizzt fan

09-10-2009, 00:49

Hugues stands with a prepared speech.

If the King quotes me, it is only fair that I quote his Majesty.

10 seasons ago the King addressed the Conseil concerning the English and war:

Seven years later, we were at war, declared by the King, not against the English, but the Germans. I guess we were ready for a war with the Empire, but not England. The King also said:

Would leaving the governing of the realm in the hands of others include declaring war against the Empire? Trying to cajole and then threaten the standing Seneschal into making an alliance with our sworn enemy? Or pressuring him into taking Caernarvon and Dublin, only to cast him aside when he failed to do exactly what his Majesty demanded of him? Why weren't any of these matters brought to the Conseil when it was in Session or after?

Having failed to govern the realm through an unwilling proxy and behind the back of the Conseil, the cycle begins again, yet this time dispensing with the proxy. We have an edict, 2.4, authorizing negotiations, but no specifics, no mention of an Alliance. In fact I doubt the King would even give us these crumbs without prodding. The Conseil has not been consulted on an offer of an Alliance. We have not been given the exact terms for the negotiations. Nor have we been asked about whether an Alliance with England, our old enemy, is wanted or advisable.

This election is about whether this Conseil is simply a rubber stamp or not. And if the Seneschal, the elected represenative of the Conseil, is only a Clerk or not. Are the Nobles of France to have any say in the affairs of the Kingdom? Do you want an independent Seneschal, or not one at all?

I ask for your vote, I ask for the Conseil to stand up for its rights, I ask you to take what is yours.

I also propose:

Edict 2.9: An alliance with England is authorized.

and

Edict 2.10: An alliance with England shall not be authorized, negotiated or accepted.

Our voice will be heard.

Not touching that..... :shocked::jawdrop: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

King might not like his authority questioned.... who is going to be brave and second it? :laugh4:

OverKnight

09-10-2009, 00:55

Hey, c'mon post, that's half the fun.

Much more inflammatory things have been said in a Senate/Diet/Magnaura session.

Edit: I might post my favorite "Speaking Truth to Power or Volunteering for Watchtower Duty" links later on.

Cultured Drizzt fan

09-10-2009, 00:58

After my little stunts in WotB I am done questioning the all powerful monarch. It never ends well. :sweatdrop: for me anyway....

Vladimir

09-10-2009, 01:14

OverKnight

09-10-2009, 05:48

Some of my favorites, but certainly not all inclusive.

A selection of telling off the Monarch:

Dietrich vs. Heinrich (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1414436#post1414436)

Mandorf vs. Heinrich (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1466860&postcount=66)

Arnold vs. Siegfried et al (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1686254&postcount=562)

Peter vs. Elberhard (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1705373&postcount=226)

Matthias vs. Elberhard (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1732147#post1732147)

Republicans vs. Royalists (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1858313#post1858313)

Ignoramus

09-10-2009, 06:21

If you're looking for precedent I suggest we establish one. Playing the GM, playing Total War, playing KotF; it's all in the fun. We're already allowing out of game events in the counsel to affect in-game actions. Let some players who cannot actively participate in the game feel like they are still part of it.

I agree with econ. Traits make up what a person is. Adding them takes away the roleplaying potential.

AussieGiant

09-10-2009, 08:01

I agree with econ.

I understand things might be a little dull but will heat up quickly.

The Council session is becoming a little tense. That's always good for business.

AussieGiant

09-10-2009, 16:12

Very quiet in the game threads.

Why do I get the impression there is a flurry of activity happening on Message boards and PMs? :beam:

OverKnight

09-10-2009, 16:21

Well it has been an uneventful Session. I can see why people wouldn't want to be a part of it. :inquisitive:

Also I think some of our more vocal members are on well deserved vacations unfortunately.

ULC

09-10-2009, 17:30

I can't do squat in the council sessions until I have some story work done :juggle2:

Braden

09-10-2009, 20:51

Ok, I am fully modded and nearly ready to join formally guys. Give me a few days to do some game tests to make sure everythings stable and to test some of the save files from here and I'll be with you.

:2thumbsup:

Zim

09-10-2009, 23:58

Just a reminder that the Council is set to end in several hours, although there might be an extension until tomorrow (I may be too busy tonight to get the polls set up, and it only seems fair to let people propose any last minute edicts if they have to wait).

THere has been no word from Mini, so Henri is yours if you'd like him, Braden. :yes:

AussieGiant

09-11-2009, 07:34

Take him Braden!! :clown:

econ21

09-11-2009, 10:15

I am not sure if we are going to have a vote on Cecil's OOC rules change about not switching settlements from city to castle, but if so, I would like to put the case against that change. I can see it has some merit in the context of a single player game where you have many settlements. In tat context, we might follow various house rules to constrain ourselves to roleplay and raise the challenge etc.

However, this PBM is so decentralised, a player may have only one settlement or a Duchy only a few, in which case it seems a little "hairshirt" to restrict what they can do with them. For example, suppose three Duchies get castles but one just by chance does not but has several unpromising towns. Would it be so bad if they are allowed to switch one to a castle? Similarly, the Order would have liked a castle, but was only offered a town. Is there something intrinsically wrong with them converting that to a castle? I don't see a realism issue here, as the castle vs city distinction anyway is highly stylised - provinces this size would have both. And in terms of role-playing etc, it seems characterful to allow a military order to dedicate its settlement to troop recruitment and defence rather than commerce; or the Kingdom to make guns vs butter kinds of choices. I am not saying that the Order would convert Antwerp if it could - I am too much of an economist to readily want to do that - but just I don't see a case for OOC prohibition.

I don't think restricting the switching of castles and cities will have a big impact on the game balance vs the AI. We will have to balance that and raise the challenge in other ways (self-restraint and GM events). In vanilla, the restriction could have a big impact on the relative power of Duchies - without a castle, they would only recruit trash. But I have the vague impression LTC allows better troops from cities that vanilla and anyway, it nerfs foot knights and - to a lesser extent - mounted knights.

Just my 2 cents.

AussieGiant

09-11-2009, 12:57

Well we are thrashing the AI, which is proved to not change cities to castles and vis versa.

I think we should limit ourselves in every way possible in relation to the AI. Therefore I would vote in favour of us not being able to make castle/city changes.

What's even better. It as simple to implement as possible. Meaning there is absolutely nothing for us to do in the game or out of it.

OverKnight

09-11-2009, 13:40

In the past games based off of M2, there were only a few times settlements were switched. Zagreb was unique, it was switched to a castle and then back to a city.

I think this will only be an early game issue. Usually territory seized later is too well developed to be switched without a major sacrifice of buildings.

Also, I think there are natural brakes in the game on switching settlements. It's relatively expensive and yields few immediate benefits. Especially in LTC, where, if I remember correctly, unit recruitment has been detached from wall or castle upgrades and relies on specific buildings such as barracks, bowyers and stables.

ULC

09-11-2009, 13:59

Hmmm...quick question, does the current system require an edict to switch between a castle/city?

KnightnDay

09-11-2009, 14:31

OverKnight

09-11-2009, 14:55

Hmmm...quick question, does the current system require an edict to switch between a castle/city?

A quick review of the rules shows that it's not mentioned at all. The decision is the territory's owner as part of setting a build queue. The Seneschal can choose to fund it or not as with other buildings.

Of course a land owning vassal in a House who chooses to "renovate" without the blessing of his superiors might be in for a interesting time.

AussieGiant

09-11-2009, 15:51

Well again I would say no because it will inconvenience us which is a good thing.

It will create lines of march that may be quite long in order for us to get professional troops.

It will create the need for houses and orders to co-ordinate with each other to get certain troop types thus creating tension, agreements and friction.

It creates a very interesting dynamic with province allocation and an added level of intrigue.

Finally it means that we may not have a regional castle which can pump out nice professional troops in a particular theatre. A nice limitation in my view.

All in all, it's a nice inhibitor against our already considerable advantage over the AI.

Braden

09-11-2009, 20:03

I will take Henri then. I still need to take one of the KotF save files to test fully but the current French campaign I'm testing is running fine with all mods installed.

I will test a save file tomorrow night.

GeneralHankerchief

09-11-2009, 20:05

Any plans for a Library update?

Braden

09-11-2009, 20:18

Ok, problem.

I have taken the current save file KOTF-1095-5.sav and unfortunately it won't load. It goes through the loading screen but then just kicks me back to the "continue campaign/load game" screen.

Is this an issue encountered before?

I'll try another .sav file now and see though. :embarassed:

OverKnight

09-11-2009, 20:52

Make sure you have M2 installed with Kingdoms, LTC and the latest patch. Links to those can be found at the bottom of the FAQ thread. A save that won't load might indicate that you're running an incompatible version of the game.

Braden

09-11-2009, 21:22

yeah, all those are installed. Perhaps I'm going to have to run a uninstall and clean re-install of everything.

I'll look tomorrow.

deguerra

09-12-2009, 02:03

Cecil XIX

09-12-2009, 04:34

Any plans for a Library update?

Just waiting for a save from the first turn of the next Seneschel term to be available. If anyone wants me to start working on library updates sooner, I'll make a point of asking it to be made available as soon as the Conseil Session starts from now on.

GeneralHankerchief

09-12-2009, 04:47

Just waiting for a save from the first turn of the next Seneschel term to be available. If anyone wants me to start working on library updates sooner, I'll make a point of asking it to be made available as soon as the Conseil Session starts from now on.

Nope, that's fine with me. Take your time. :yes:

Braden

09-12-2009, 16:22

yeah Braden from my experience, that specific issue means something is missing in the base install. make sure you have all the latest patches (i didnt have 1.6, which took me waay to long to realize).

Yeah, think I'll go with a full clean install and start again.

downloading patch 1.2 & 1.3 from the .com site

What patches does Kingdoms contain? Might save some time as Kingdoms takes HOURS to install...:furious3:...silly "four separate installations".

Kept the Lands To Conquer mod and the KotFMod1.4

Then the Kingdoms own patch (that's the "1.6" I believe)

Install in order of course - 1.2 > 1.3 > Kingdoms > 1.6 > Lands To Conquer > KotFMod1.4...

...that should do it shouldn't it :inquisitive: ?

deguerra

09-12-2009, 17:28

1.6 is seperate from kingdoms, which was my mistake. Your order seems right to me. I can not tell you how much I hate reinstalling total war games, especially as I keep them on an external hard drive and reconvincing my comptuer that, yes, total war is installed is very annoying for every bleeding patch :laugh4:

Braden

09-12-2009, 19:09

Ramses II CP

09-12-2009, 21:35

Okay guys, FYI I am back and trying to catch up. Unexpected absence, time is going to be short for awhile, but I'll do my best to keep up.

:egypt:

OverKnight

09-12-2009, 22:19

When you install kingdoms it automatically installs up to and including patch 1.2. No need to download it.

Braden

09-12-2009, 22:53

When you install kingdoms it automatically installs up to and including patch 1.2. No need to download it.

Fudge...:embarassed:...already installed 1.2, oh well. Now installing 1.3

Ibn-Khaldun

09-12-2009, 23:13

I apologize but I have to leave.
I just feel myself so empty at the moment.
A lyrics from Bryan Adams' song "Sound the Bugle" could sum up what I'm going through at the moment:

Sound the bugle now - play it just for me
As the seasons change - remember how I used to be
Now I can't go on - I can't even start
I've got nothing left - just an empty heart

I'm a soldier - wounded so I must give up the fight
There's nothing more for me - lead me away...
Or leave me lying here

YLC and TheFlax, we had some good story materials there. Sry, for leaving them like that - unused.
Whoever get's Charles - good luck playing him. There's a lot of potential in that character. ~:)

So..

Perhaps I shall return one day but until then..

Good Bye!

deguerra

09-13-2009, 00:26

aww Ibn! Boo!:thumbsdown:

Come back soon! :balloon2:

edit: second prince down. how are we going to replace this one?

TheFlax

09-13-2009, 08:13

Sorry to see you go Ibn, I hope everything works out ok for you. :yes:

Zim

09-13-2009, 08:56

Don't vote in the poll yet, I need to fix something...

Zim

09-13-2009, 09:06

Polls are finished. They close in roughly 48 hours.

How do people feel about the proposed rules change? I could open a separate poll for it if people are interested.

OverKnight

09-13-2009, 09:47

Well, as I read the games rules, OOC rule changes don't require seconders, which is why I didn't list any. Whether this was the intent or not I don't know.

I'd certainly say put it up for an unweighted vote.

Edit: Gaspard shouldn't be part of the Seneschal election. There was a debate in the Conseil over this. Essentially Gaspard doesn't meet the land holding requirement for running because the Order hasn't received Antwerp until it's ratified. There were arguments for both sides, but the King ruled to disqualify him.

Perhaps I should have made it more clear in the history.

Braden

09-13-2009, 12:05

Sorry to hear about Ibn leaving now just as I'm coming in.

So, the good news for today! I have got it all sorted (turns out all I was doing was not playing using Kingdoms disc AND not using the KotF shortcut)....sav files load and all seems good.

I'll take tonight to test the battle difficulties but in short...

...I'm in!! I'll take whoever's available. Henri will be ok for me if that still acceptable.

:2thumbsup:

I'd better learn what happens next, where I am and what I'm doing now?!? :laugh4:

OverKnight

09-13-2009, 13:44

You might find this story (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2293594&postcount=18) about the Royal family useful. It gives a sense of the family dynamics.

Not to toot my own horn, but perusing the history might be a good way to catch up. It has links to all the battle reports, stories, Seneschal reports and Conseil sessions, with occascional bar fights, stabbings and feuds.

I believe Henri is currently in Reims.

Braden

09-13-2009, 20:27

I've been reading the stories but there's been a significant gap from Henri the young adolecent and Henri the late teenager.

Most of its been very useful to describe the family dynamic though and useful to me but mainly I need to get a handle on the actual game mechanisms now (who, how and when are saves moved about and who moves what etc).

OverKnight

09-13-2009, 22:24

I would start be taking a close look at the FAQ and Rules (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=120308) thread. That has the game mechanics.

Second, create a post in the Status and Orders (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=120462) thread. This is where you set the parameters for your character. Such as who can move Henri, besides you, and set a build queue and tax rate for any settlements you might have. Henri has no land at the moment, so less to worry about there. If you decide to change this information, edit your post rather than posting again.

Third, consider joining a House. PM a Duke or Prince, or just skip to swearing fealty to them publicly in the Conseil or appropriate House thread.

As for who moves the characters and has the save: The Seneschal begins the turn with the game. Having viewed the AI turns and such, he posts a report on this and the previous year and gives a link to the current uploaded save. Examples of this can be seen in the Seneschal's and Nobles' Reports (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=120704) thread.

Once there is a report and a current save posted for the turn (ie KotF-1080) , the Seneschal opens up access to the save for 24 hours, minimum, to the rest of the players. Any player can download the save to take actions, usually involving their own character and settlements, but they have to post in the Seneschal's report thread that they have taken it. This is to ensure only one player has the save at any time. Once done with their actions, such as fighting a battle, adjusting a tax rate or moving their character, the player should upload a copy of the new save, with a modified name to avoid confusion (ie KotF-1080-1), and give a link to it in a new post in the thread. It is polite, but not required, to give a summary of what you did with the save. After the 24 hour window, the Seneschal takes the latest save back and ends the turn. The cycle then repeats.

Think of the save as the baton in a relay race. Only one person can have the baton at a time, and it is passed from one player to another. The Seneschal starts with the baton and ends with it.

I'm sure fellow members of the Royal family would be happy to answer any question you might have about being a royal and any past background on Henri. However, he's yours now, so feel free to take him in your own direction.

As a family member, and not just an RGB, you can actually inherit a Duchy rather than create one from scratch (RGBs can't inherit Duchies according to the rules). This might be to your advantage.

If you have any specific questions, I'm sure they can be answered in this thread.

Braden

09-13-2009, 22:56

Thankyou Overknight that's pretty much what I needed to point me in the right direction. I'll look now to filling those details by the end of the week once I've finished reading up on the details and have run a full game test.

Zim

09-13-2009, 23:57

That's what I get for just drawing the names from the history thread. :clown:

Rereading the Counseil thread I can see where the dispute was solved.

I'll be more careful about the polls next session. In the meantime should anyone vote for Gaspard I'll pm them to see if they'd like to change their vote. :bow:

On a completely unrelated note I can't believe I misspelled "Legislation" in the voting thread title. :laugh4:

Edit: Gaspard shouldn't be part of the Seneschal election. There was a debate in the Conseil over this. Essentially Gaspard doesn't meet the land holding requirement for running because the Order hasn't received Antwerp until it's ratified. There were arguments for both sides, but the King ruled to disqualify him.

Perhaps I should have made it more clear in the history.

Zim

09-14-2009, 00:37

Not sure if anyone is interested but a fun game just restarted in the gameroom. That game is Cold War Crisis, where players take the reins of major countries from the Cold War period. It's basically a diplomatic and roleplaying game, with stats and dice rolls used in warfare and espionage.

Its first incarnation started towards the end of the Cold War, around 1980. It suffered from a few kinks including a rather ambitious economic rules system but those have largely been smoothed over for the sequel game, starting some ten or so years later (in an alternate history affected by the actions of the players in the first game).

New player countries aren't being added but there are a fair number of countries that already have role pms (basically a summation of stats, special abilities and focuses, etc.) that need players. To the best of my knowledge those countries are Indonesia, Turkey, Iran , Somalia, possibly Canada, and Japan (labeled on the map with a player but he is having time issues and can't join).

It's a fun game and the more players the better. It also doesn't require a huge time outlay as long as you can get some basic orders together every two days or so.

Original thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=119203

New thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=121518

econ21

09-14-2009, 04:09

second prince down. how are we going to replace this one?

Any lurker following the game is free to post in this thread and ask to join in; I am sure Zim will welcome them. I noticed flyd voted for Gaspard in the election poll - perhaps he would like to come on board?

deguerra

09-14-2009, 04:15

Any lurker following the game is free to post in this thread and ask to join in; I am sure Zim will welcome them. I noticed flyd voted for Gaspard in the election poll - perhaps he would like to come on board?

Wait, why isn't he playing anyway?:clown:

flyd, get your arse in here!

OverKnight

09-14-2009, 04:38

Actually, I think flyd wanted to vote for Hugues but was confused by the ballot. I don't think he was being a smart-ass at all, nope. No chance. None. :no:

:laugh4:

deguerra

09-14-2009, 05:02

Actually, I think flyd wanted to vote for Hugues but was confused by the ballot. I don't think he was being a smart-ass at all, nope. No chance. None. :no:

:laugh4:

Ok, that's it. I demand a recount...

...

...turns out Bush won :shrug:

:clown:

Ignoramus

09-14-2009, 06:30

Maybe you'll want to introduce two-term Seneschals?

OverKnight

09-14-2009, 14:25

It's been done. :yes:

_Tristan_

09-14-2009, 15:31

Ok, guys, the King is back...

Had some problems to sort out (that's what you get when selling your house and buying a new one...:wall:)

Will catch up on everything... And vote as well

flyd

09-14-2009, 21:50

Don't mind me, just poking fun at Zim. (Someone has to do it).

econ21

09-14-2009, 22:18

Well, if anyone else is lurking and would like to join the PBM - post here or drop Zim a line, I am sure something can be arranged. Until then, I suggest we keep the Prince as a "non-speaking part". The first person whose avatar dies can make a case for picking him up.

Ramses II CP

09-14-2009, 22:20

Just by way of an FYI a former friend of my family has decided to try to harass us and cause problems, so I'm dealing with that in real life and it makes it very difficult for me to enjoy gaming even when I have time. Prince Louis hasn't been abandoned, he's just feeling a little more sedate or something right now.

:egypt:

GeneralHankerchief

09-14-2009, 22:25

Ouch, I can't even imagine how harsh/annoying that would be. Best wishes Ramses. :yes:

OverKnight

09-14-2009, 23:16

Stupid, stupid real life. Always ruining the fun. . .

The election for Seneschal just got even more interesting. It's close now, Florida close.

Or. . .to to draw on a more recent event. . .Minnesota close.

Cecil XIX

09-14-2009, 23:48

Am I wrong, or does Proclamation 2.1 take us back to LotR in terms of limits on expansion imposed by the rules? (i.e., there are none)

OverKnight

09-15-2009, 00:08

Only if we trade for or purchase territories. Anything we took through conquest would still have to be ratified.

Even given that, it's still too broad for my tastes.

AussieGiant

09-15-2009, 10:00

Well it requires a 2/3 majoriy to pass so I don't think it is going to get through.

econ21

09-15-2009, 10:27

I'm a little uneasy about the number of requests in the poll threads for votes to be changed - especially when the unweighted Seneschal vote is tied. I don't know of any real life polls where you can change your vote once cast. It seems to open the whole voting system to lots of potentially underhand deals (a loser is one vote behind so bribes one person to switch their vote). I am not at all saying that is happening here and am making no insinuations about anyone (I have not paid attention to who has voted for what etc.) And I understand that people can make mistakes/change their minds. But the potential for abuse seems to be there. The forums have a nice tool for polls that makes voting clean and transparent. My 2 cents is that we just stick with that. If people make a mistake or change their mind, that's too bad. Otherwise, I fear we are heading for horse-trading and risk becoming a medieval Florida at polling time.

OverKnight

09-15-2009, 10:58

People have changed their votes in the past for a few different reasons. Sometimes they clicked the wrong choice, sometimes under pressure from their Lords. When you ran the elections econ, how did you handle this?

I guess Zim would have final call on whether to accept a changed vote. We could also vote on a rules change to tighten voting procedures. If it comes to that, I'd prefer a verifiable secret ballot rather than a public poll, but we can burn that bridge when we get to it.

As it lies now, if we go by just the poll and accounting for influence, I believe the election is tied. Which means a fresh ballot. If the fresh ballot ties, we go by avatar age. Which would be unfortunate because Hugues and the King are the same age I think.

If the two changed votes are accepted, Hugues won.

Ituralde

09-15-2009, 11:30

I would only allow a change of vote if people accidentally pressed the wrong option. I can only speculate on the reason behind the current switches, but I would prefer if we could keep switching to the absolute minimum (i.e. misclicking) in future elections.

If the Leader of a House makes his priorities known to his vassals too late he just has to be faster or his vassals more patient the next time.

GeneralHankerchief

09-15-2009, 13:00

I do apologize for my part in all this. Unsure if Ramses would show, I decided to take some initiative and vote based on how I thought Louis would have wanted me to (rather than risk not voting). Then he returned and gave different orders.

OverKnight

09-15-2009, 13:56

Perhaps we should let an impartial official make the decision:

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb88/douglaslain/katherine_harris.jpg

At least there are no hanging chads. :laugh4:

GeneralHankerchief

09-15-2009, 14:06

Sorry for the interruption (although this may be more pleasant than Katherine Harris :hide:) but I'm learning about Hildegard von Bingen in class right now. :yes:

OverKnight

09-15-2009, 14:10

Weird, may I ask what course this is?

It can't be too interesting since you're posting while you're supposed to be. . .you know. . .learning?

Hit the books! :whip:

GeneralHankerchief

09-15-2009, 14:15

"Greatness in Music", and since I already looked her up when the whole Mandorf conversion saga started, I'm allowed to. :tongue:

Ituralde

09-15-2009, 15:29

Fun Fact: Hildegard von Bingen published the earliest description of the female orgasm!

Now back to learning. And voting. And counting those votes, it seems like this election is going on forever! :juggle2:

AussieGiant

09-15-2009, 15:38

Regarding the election.

To date there have been a few changes but no repeat offenders.

There is clearly a RL issue with Ramses and GH, so there should be not too much of an issue here. It's happened before but as long as it doesn't start happening repeatedly for each person then we should be fine.

Zim

09-15-2009, 19:10

I just need to clear up one thing thing and I'll be able to post the results in a bit. :bow:

Braden

09-15-2009, 19:45

Well I've done some playtesting now and I'm fully IN the game now.

Just need to read up on Henri and swear fielty (is that the correct spelling :dizzy2:) to a Lord, post up a Bio and try to pursade someone to get me onto the battlefront!!

econ21

09-15-2009, 20:28

When you ran the elections econ, how did you handle this?

You are right, we've always been relaxed about changes in votes in the past. But back in the day, I thought they were correcting misclicks (which you would be a hard GM not to allow) as opposed to representing a change of heart (which is what is making me queasy now). I can't recall it coming up with a Chancellor vote, at least not one where it would matter. With the multiple edict polls, it's easy to misclick and so I readily allowed changes. Given that it's impossible for the GM to be sure if it's a misclick or a change of heart, I'd take a hard line now and stick with polls as they are :whip: but this is Zim's call. :bow:

Ramses II CP

09-15-2009, 22:02

House Aquitaine's voting pattern is entirely my fault, I don't even have a very nuanced view of what's happened in the election thus far due to real life nonsense. If it matters Louis' opinion on the vote was not based on votes already cast or not cast (I just flat out got a better offer from one candidate), but I won't argue no matter which way the issue is decided.

Sorry guys.

:egypt:

OverKnight

09-15-2009, 23:07

You are right, we've always been relaxed about changes in votes in the past. But back in the day, I thought they were correcting misclicks (which you would be a hard GM not to allow) as opposed to representing a change of heart (which is what is making me queasy now). I can't recall it coming up with a Chancellor vote, at least not one where it would matter. With the multiple edict polls, it's easy to misclick and so I readily allowed changes. Given that it's impossible for the GM to be sure if it's a misclick or a change of heart, I'd take a hard line now and stick with polls as they are :whip: but this is Zim's call. :bow:

If there is a desire to tighten up how we count votes, feel free to propose a rules change. However, I also feel a bit queasy over how we are arguing about applying new stricter standards to a vote that has already taken place under previous accepted standards.

I'm all for changing the rules going forward, but retroactively doing so is a bit of a grey area.

Ignoramus

09-16-2009, 01:27

Northnovas

09-16-2009, 01:48

Well I agree lets deal with a present, we have a tie so a run off vote?
If there are concerns with the voting lets a rule before the next election but deal with this vote now under the current system.

econ21

09-16-2009, 01:48

If there is a desire to tighten up how we count votes, feel free to propose a rules change. However, I also feel a bit queasy over how we are arguing about applying new stricter standards to a vote that has already taken place under previous accepted standards.

I'm all for changing the rules going forward, but retroactively doing so is a bit of a grey area.

Well, IMO, a player requesting to change their vote because they have changed their mind makes the whole thing a grey area. I've just looked over the old LotR, KotR and WotS election polls. No one changed their vote in any KotR or WotS election. In LotR, it happened twice - both claimed to be "mistakes", although one at least has me looking for a raised eyebrows smillie. I don't think we have ever had anyone say - please change my vote because I have changed my mind. I think that would be a change in the accepted standard, but maybe I am out of touch.

I'd be happy with whatever Zim decides for this particular poll - this kind of thing seems entirely at his discretion and he is, as you say, impartial. But I would be even happier if he did not allow changes in the future. Such changes seem to be becoming common enough to act on - two cases in two KotF polls (plus two in eight LotR ones). A GM ruling would be sufficient, IMO, as there is no rule to change and I don't think we need to have everything in writing (or the rules would be voluminous).

The current system is poor, because it enables people who vote last to see who's going to win, thus enabling them to support the winner and receive the benefits thereby.

Yes, I guess that's one reason why OK was suggesting a secret ballot. But I think the reason we use public votes is that it is an easy way to check that only bona fide players vote. (I was nervous when I mistakenly made the first Order Captain election poll secret - I had no way to know who was voting). And identifying the voters is necessary to know which votes come with added influence. But I also quite like the public aspect as it's what real Parliament's do to keep representatives accountable. In our context, it makes voting "blocs" like Duchies have some coherence and makes some horse trades more enforceable.

In an ideal world, we'd vote simultaneously - a show of hands, a Westminster division etc. - but that's not practical in an internet game.

I think we just have to live with players being able to delay voting to see which way the wind is blowing. I confess I've done it sometimes in past games votes on edicts - deciding if I wanted to expend political capital on a lost cause - but never for elections.

GeneralHankerchief

09-16-2009, 01:50

The current system is poor, because it enables people who vote last to see who's going to win, thus enabling them to support the winner and receive the benefits thereby. I feel that some of the vote changes have been done because of this.

I can honestly say that this hasn't been the case in any of the instances for this session. Aquitaine was disorganized without our leader, we voted in fear of losing our vote while waiting for Ramses to show up, and then he appeared and gave us our orders.

Cultured Drizzt fan

09-16-2009, 01:58

Exactly, just following orders :sweatdrop:

If it that big of a deal we can always get rid of the switch....
:shrug: sorry If I caused any problems.

deguerra

09-16-2009, 02:05

I'm certainly happy to leave things as they are for this election, and for the future say any vote changes should be only due to misclicking (and quite frankly I would be suspicious about misclicking in a three person poll).

As for the Aquitaine situation, I recognize the issue. I'd say in future, just wait til the last feasible minute to vote so orders can come in. And if the situation still arises, and is made public, I don't really have a problem with votes changing in those specific circumstances. The change was in essence Ramses' "fault" and I don't think we should punish him or his duchy for his perfectly understandable absence.

OverKnight

09-16-2009, 02:25

Hmmm. We want to avoid delayed or gamey voting, but we also want to know how each person voted.

If Zim was up to it, and it would be a bit of a headache, each player would send a PM to Zim with their vote for Seneschal (I'm assuming we could leave legislation as is) during the 48 hour voting period. PMs have time stamps, so this is trackable. Once the voting period is over, Zim would post the PMs of eligible voters. If he wanted he could even designate someone to tally the votes and influence, as long as he, as an impartial thirdy party, receives the originial PMs. This way we can't track votes while balloting is going on, but we still know afterwards how people voted.

If someone went against his liege's wishes, he could still suffer fallout for not toeing the line, even if it was too late for the current election. The downside is that this would burden Zim with more work and possibly slow down the game. But we seem to be doing that now anyway. :laugh4:

AussieGiant

09-16-2009, 07:34

:dizzy2:

Alright lets not go all ape :daisy: over this. :balloon2: (Deliberate exaggeration to draw everyone’s attention)

The public ballot is fine as there are a myriad of benefits practically and for the game. Secret ballots are all well and good but open voting in the chambers is what real democracies do so for me the benefits definitely outweigh the potential advantages, which are arguable at best.

As for swapping votes, then we do seem to have hit a snag but retrospective legislation is an appalling concept, so lets just tighten things up at the next vote.

The issue that could be addressed is "changing your vote". Personally, as we have a GM and he has that title for a reason, then perhaps we can leave it then?

*Here's a GM ruling that in future might have an impact.

"Request for vote change denied. Your vote is annulled for this session. Thanks for taking note."

Zim

09-16-2009, 08:48

Alright, I had been trying to contact someone to get some input but I think I've been dragging this too long.

Changing a vote because of accidentally clicking on the wrong choice is fine. I think I've done it at least once in LOTR. Changing it after realizing your vote might not be in line with your House leader is a bit grayer of an area and I'm going to draw the line against it. I don't see where changed votes for other reasons than a misclick was allowed in past games and wouldn't want to set a precedent for allowing it.

I understand the difficulty of lacking instructions from the House leader (those who remember KOTR know I was in a Von Salza run Swabia) and of worrying about their not returning before the voting deadline. Sometimes you just have to take a chance and just vote where you think your or your House's interests lie. If it turns out to be too early there's always next election.

We'll have a quick re-vote as per the rules. I eliminated the abstain option since I won't need to use this vote to measure activity.

deguerra

09-16-2009, 09:01

those who remember KOTR know I was in a Von Salza run Swabia

Ah you take me back. Though frankly I'm surprised you ever got to vote, given how quickly you were killing off your characters :clown:

Zim

09-16-2009, 09:12

My characters did tend to die charging the flanks of weakened units they should easily have mowed down...

Andreas lasted a while I thought, most of my time in KOTR.

econ21

09-16-2009, 11:35

We'll have a quick re-vote as per the rules.

:2thumbsup:

Good decision - fancy a job as UN Special Envoy to Kabul?

TinCow

09-16-2009, 18:48

Just dropping in to say hello. Tomorrow is the last full day of my vacation (spending it in Oxford, with dinner at a place (http://www.fatduck.co.uk/) I've been dreaming of going to for several years) and I'll be flying back to the States on Friday. I will try and get caught up after I've come back, though I'm also going to be gone the following Saturday and Sunday to attend a wedding in NYC. October 1 also starts the beginning of a new production year for me at work, which essentially means that I won't be as busy at work for a while afterwards. So, I very much expect my activity level to pick up significantly starting at the beginning of October.

KnightnDay

09-17-2009, 05:00

So Hugues leads the Seneschal race 13-5. Is that now considered insurmountable?

Zim

09-17-2009, 06:38

Good enough for me. The new Seneschal can take the save to look at and open whenever he's ready.

AussieGiant

09-17-2009, 08:40

OverKnight

09-17-2009, 11:15

Well a quick start to my term. I'm puttering around, hit end turn and wham! a ford battle.

Anyone have an over/under on when the first critique rolls in? :laugh4:

Since a lot of coordination and updating needs to be done, I'm leaning towards extending the save window.

Thoughts?

Edit: Just FYI, but I didn't make any changes to the game before hitting end turn. I wanted to get that spy out of Dublin, but I figured that my term didn't begin until 1096, so I didn't.

AussieGiant

09-17-2009, 11:23

How long did it take you to do all that OK?

Looks great to me. You are certainly giving more of a "situational" report than I ever did.

Nice stuff. We seem to have a nice amount of cash...:beam:

OverKnight

09-17-2009, 11:30

4 hours, give or take. Fortunately it's my day off.

First turn of a term usually takes the longest because you have to take stock of the situation and formulate a plan. This turn will take a while for me as well, because I'll be reviewing the SOT and Edicts, implementing recruitment and builds and juggling a lot of correspondence.

Ituralde

09-17-2009, 11:42

AussieGiant

09-17-2009, 11:54

_Tristan_

09-17-2009, 13:27

How do we deal with the fact that the army in Frankfurt was the King's one but should now belong to whoever has been granted that settlement ?

Ituralde

09-17-2009, 13:44

In Character. :juggle2:

I can't remember how we handled it in the other games but there never was a provision for retaining ownership of armies once you enter the city/caste of another noble. Since you are helping in the defense of the city though there should be little problem. If I remember it most SoTs would only state that a certain amount of units had to be kept as minimum garrison. So no problem there. If someone's SoT specifically stated that no units may leave. Well, you didn't enter the city in the first place then. And if he needed help defending the city he'd better change his SoT first.

Hope that answers any questions you have about it.

Edit: So in essence I'm saying that the King's army could now belong to the new owner of Frankfurt. If he wants it he can have it. Of course the King could be very unhappy about that.

_Tristan_

09-17-2009, 13:58

Yes but the city was in the King's demesne at the time of the army going in, and was granted only afterwards, so any opinions ?

KnightnDay

09-17-2009, 14:18

I don't think it's practical to figure out troop ownership based on when troops went in and out and when city posession changed. They could hang around indefinitely and since in the meantime new troops can be raised and we can't tag ownership, etc, should belong to the city owner. That said, Frankfurt is mine now, and IC Thomas would not lay claim to any troops fighting with the kings avatar.

I will update my SOT appropriately so there is no restrction of their use.

Ituralde

09-17-2009, 14:32

Yes but the city was in the King's demesne at the time of the army going in, and was granted only afterwards, so any opinions ?

I'd say in future you sould watch out who you gift provinces to. If you are afraid that the new owner won't let your army out again, I am sure you can make arrangements beforehand. Or better yet not give the province at all.

So my oppinion would be that for the sake of easy OOC rules the OOC rules would always be on the side of the province owner. So even if you made an arrangement he can never be forced OOC to do as he promised. The whole thing would turn into an IC matter. Why give land to people you don't trust? And if they seem trustworthy and then backstab you. Well, all the more interesting if you ask me.

I know that these kind of questions have always been raised in regards to Army ownership. Through roleplay it would often be obvious that certain troops are loyal to their King, Duke, or whatever and would not react kindly to their leader being disposed. In order to have clear OOC rules though it's very difficult to implement these kind of things without making it overly complicated.

So I'd stick with the rules we have and figure the rest out IC. I am sure many things can be arranged OOC with both sides (e.g. the two players involved agreeing that some 'veteran' troops will refuse to be taken over in this matter). After all we're playing this together OOC even if we fight each other IC.