How many people "roleplay" it?

[econ21]

Although designed primarily as a "conquer the world" type game, Medieval is not bad for roleplaying - trying to act in character as a rule, maybe guided by GAs.

I'm just playing a game as England on early (for the nth time) and for once, the Almohads are threatening to wipe out the Spanish rather than vice versa, the usual pattern I've observed since the patch. It poses my king an ethical dilemma. The Spanish are excommunicated and probably on their way out. Do I use a crusade to grab two neighbouring provinces, to make a buffer between the Almohads and my continental possessions? Or do I do nothing, staying true to my Spanish allies and "Christian brothers" (remember, I am role-playing this and my main GAs right now are crusades)?

It is quite a "fun" dilemma. The realpolitik in me says grab some buffer provinces before the Almohads become unstoppable, rather like Stalin in 1939. The sentimentalist says such a betrayal would be unthinkable. What to do?

I suspect that to be true to how a historical English king would behave, I should hold fire and await the coming storm.

[Asmodeus]

I often have these problems too as I loath betraying Allies and will respond with all the force available to those that betray me.

However if it helps your concience, I'm sure the Pope had good reason to excommunicate the King of Spain and the good Catholic people in those territories need a strong reliable to ruler to defend them against the Almohads. I would launch a crusade and keep what you can safe from muslim invasion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Alrowan]

well for your dilema, looks like a tough one.

my favourite way to play in these dilemas is the international police force, the same way i play a game of risk. Basically, try keep the other kingdoms power balanced, so when push comes to shove there are no super powers to hold you.

As far as roleplaying goes, i went one campagin as england expert late, and made it my goal to try win the hundred years war before the game ended.. now this wont win the game for you, but the satisfaction of not starting any wars until 1350, then only fighting france is fun.

[Galestrum]

I roleplay SP games exclusively now, it really help me make the game tougher. When i fist got this ga,e i loved it and the quickly hated it, as i felt the AI in battles and strat map was sorely in need of help. I then went ahead and modded some units, buildings, and provinces to reflect history better and that helped.

But what really helped, was actually focuing on the history of the faction i played, the GA's, and the virtues and vices of my king, royal family and royal generals. This restricts me to basiclly playing as the kings of their time ruled.

For instance, if I have an high accuman king with similar virtues/vices, i focus on economic development, if he is a great warrior, he is not averse to war, and will likely be used to engage enmiy units more often that a general/king that dos not have that virtue.

If i have a zealous heir/king/general - i send them on a crusade, regardless of whether i can spare him or not. etc etc. If i have a pious king and the pope excommunicats another catholic i may very well crusade against them. Particularly until 1205, i crusade quite a bit to reflect the large crusading movement of the time. by doing this, i dont have the same amount of control and grand schemes taht i would normally have as a player, and actually reflect the shorter time span goals of a RL monarch. King Richard prby never thought about what england would be like 50 or 100 years after his death, and you should not either.

RP this game gives the AI a better chance, imo, and can make for some fun games too. Now im not saying i never do things that werent done in history, I adjust as events differ, but i still maintain "the spirit" of the faction when facing new circumstances. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[bakdal]

I would suggest, that there's no such thing as a "christian brother", if we're talking politics. That is, unless it suits you as an argument otherwise.

Your decisions in these matters, needs to reflect which parametres you have given yourself as a ruler.

If the crusades suits you, even against spanish brothers, the rest is arguments for establishing the crusades.

And isn't that the point where role playing games get's difficult? To whom shall you explain why you act as you do? Unless you by role play mean "theme games", where certain personal pre-game goals are articulated (expansion only when excisting regions have loyalty over 180% and at least 60% follow your religion, or what ever).

Do read Machiavelli: The Prince for further inspiration in active foreign policy

Bakdal

[econ21]

Thanks for the replies, they are food for thought. I love the idea of looking at the King's stats, vices and virtues - excellent idea

The irony is that the Spanish were excommunicated because the Aragonese had realised the Spaniards were on the way out and opportunistically attacked Spain. The Spanish robustly counter-attacked and laid siege to Aragon. The Pope then excommunicated them. (I hate it when he does that&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif So the Spanish have my every sympathy in that regard.

Not sure about the "Christian brothers" thing, obviously a sensitive topic to discuss in the present real world. (I used the phrase as an inversion of what you often hear people on the street in Muslim countries when interviewed on TV "Oh, we must defend X because they are our Muslim brothers"). I wonder how much of a factor religion was in the Middle Ages?

I think MTW models religion quite nicely, as - at least for Catholics, thanks to the Pope - you do regard other Catholic nations differently than non-Catholics, although with no less and maybe more rivalry.

I just can't see an English king, seeing the Almohads starting to over-run Spain, would help them finish the job by stabbing his Spanish ally in the back. That does require someone like Stalin. (Although I do vaguely recall Churchill ordering the sinking of the French fleet in 1940 but at least then the fleet was not actively fighting the Germans).

Anyway, I find this scenario much more fun than the one I usually face, whereby a Spanish steamroller takes the Holy Lands before I can mount a sea-born crusade. That makes the English GA game a little dull.

[Kraxis]

Of course there is the stats and V&Vs, they can be great for this. But also consider your previous actions:

Have you atacked allies before, with this king naturally.
Is he a great Muslim fighter?
Has he helped allies out before?

Previous actions of the Spanish should also be considered:

Have they remained your ally despite you going to war with one of their allies?
Have they refrained from attacking you when you left the border lightly defended?

That would determine hos your king would look at them. "Ohh our friends the Spanish are under heavy preassure, we must help." Or "Hahahaha... Those stupid Almohads are doing the job for us, come lets get some Spanish lands."

[Tyrac]

I keep a History book on my desk. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I just read over what England was doing during the first half of the "early" era.
I will not go into details but it was certainly NOT worrying about what was going on in Spain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Pellinor]

Perhaps what you should do is send Spain reinforcements to hold back the infidel. Due to the game mechanics, you'd have to do this as a crusade - build one targetted on the closest Almohad province, sling a decent army into it, and go to help out.

You might get an Almohad province or two out of it (liberated Spaniards swear fealty to English crown), and if the Spanish go down you have troops handy to grab the rebels as buffers.

[Bob the Insane]

I like this sort of game, as the AI opponents usually need some time to develop and become effective. I play GA and try to follow the GA's while trying to prevent other countries achieving theirs though assassins, spys, and war..

I rarely keep lands I take in battle, but loot and raze them, then abandon them to be retaken. Only if they stay mine for a while will I start investing in them. It keeps the game interesting all the way to the end.

Somehow it does not feel right to conquor all of europe as one faction. It has a better feeling to be the dominant power, not the only one left standing. It's hard to have enemies quake with fear at your trading abilities and the power of your armies when there are no enemies left.

I expect RTW will resolve that, as it's in ancient history and a time of huge empires and mass conquest.

[LadyAnn]

I would look it like this: you are trying to save the Christian souls by grabbing land from the excommunicated Spanish leader.

Annie

[Disco Volante]

Kill them Kill them all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[A.Saturnus]

I would like to roleplay that adultery-vice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But what about unhinged loon? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
And don`t tell me anything about incest http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[econ21]

Yes, I reflection, I think I'd rather "roleplay" it in the sense of putting myself in the position of being king (or rather, immortal eminence grise) and making my own choices to direct the destiny of a nation. Trying to match the profile of whichever loon happens to be king (and playing a rather pacific game does not do much for the gene pool) conjures up the image of myself as a rather schizophrenic player frantically swopping hats and changing playstyles.

Interestingly, my ethical dilemma went away last night, when Portugal rebelled against the Almohads, giving Spain a very powerful rebel force of feudal knights. Since my trade route has expanded, I can now see the Almohad lands and their army is much less impressive than I feared. I suspect the Spanish may now hammer the Almohads and keep going until they get to Jerusalem. So I am planing a sea-borne expedition to create a roadblock at Tunis. No way am I going to let the Spaniards beat me to the Holy Land

[bakdal]

I'm playing as Italy currently, and made a few rules for my self, or rather for managing my empire.

I decided Italy should be run strictly according to catholic thinking, and set up a few aims for the first period of the game:

- Conquer Palestine, at all cost (I did succeed, but not with a crusade. Would I have recieved some kind of credit? I did conquer the holy land after the papal decrete).

- No italian excommunication, and I would follow papal foreign policy as close as possible.

That worked out well, so I could expand the rules a little bit:

- No (or few, that is) military buildings in Jerusalem.
- All italian kings retire to the holy land at the age of 55, no matter what, for a religious refugium.
- No italian initiated aggressions against catholics at all

Then France got excommunicated, which was quite lucky for me, as I needed expansion, and didn't want to interrupt a nice, but delicate balance in the west (Byz. vs. turks and egyptians).

New rules are to be made. Perhaps a policy change, and then aim to take control of all holy regions (Ile de France etc.)?

It is fun indeed to play role play style, with what ever rules. For instance playing a power as close to history as possible.

Do not consider MTW as a game to win, but rather as an object of fun scenarios, with you as the developer and the player.

Any others who would share experinces?

Bakdal

[Praylak]

Interesting thread.

I find that I can't play any other way, I role play automaticly. For example as a frequent Turk player, I know it's in my best interest to take out Egypt, but they always request an alliance and I can't bring myself to refuse being a Muslim brother in face of the infidel crusades. (I'm not really Muslim, but hey)

[Elwe]

In my current campaign as the Romans (Byzantines), I decided to set my own goal of returning the Empire to it's status of the 5th Century... All of Asia Minor, the Holy Lands, northern Africa to Morocco, the southern Balkans, the Illyrian coast and Italy, Corsica and Sardinia. This also meant no crossing north of the Danube, not taking provinces that were outside of that designated border. I restricted shipping to my own coastal areas only.

I have finally achieved that goal, and it only ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif ) took me until the mid 1300's to do it... Having a long border, from Bulgaria to Milan, is actually very challenging... that is a lot of territory to defend

With this goal finally achieved, I concentratted on consolidating my border... and then the newly re-emergent Spanish decided to call a crusade on Tripoli... Time to restore the Glory of Rome as it was in 300 AD. Look out Spain and France http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Cheers.

[cugel]

"The irony is that the Spanish were excommunicated because the Aragonese had realised the Spaniards were on the way out and opportunistically attacked Spain. The Spanish robustly counter-attacked and laid siege to Aragon. The Pope then excommunicated them. (I hate it when he does that So the Spanish have my every sympathy in that regard.
"

Well, that's the Pope for you He's just a MUTHA. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Actually, the medieval Popes really meddled in politics in this arbitrary and capricious fashion.

In 1415 the Pope ignored a safe conduct issued by the HRE Emperor to dissident cleric Jan Hus, tried Hus for heresy and executed him. This precipitated an uprising by Hus's followers in the Emperor's Bohemian dominions. The Pope then insisted that Emperor Sigismund attack the Hussites which he did, but was soundly defeated. The rebels won several further battles against imperial forces sent to crush them and eventually forced the HRE to negotiate a compromise with them in 1436. All because of the meddling of the Pope http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I usually just wipe him out so that he can't cause further trouble

[desdichado]

I started roleplaying by accident but it turned into a fun campaign (which is good as I was starting to get a bit bored ot MTW - given it a new lease of life).

Playing as HRE for 1st time on expert got attacked by France after only 5 years and spent next 50 years sqaubbling with them over Burgundy, Lorraine & Freisland. This of course reduced these provinces to little more than wastelands. Had a lot of trouble as little money and mostly peasant & UM troops. Have to change your tactics when most of your troops rout at the sound of a fight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Anyway I decided my emperors would have an aversion to costly wars with my catholic & orthodox (Byz) neighbours and would only attack rebels & muslims as long as they were no direct threat. I would also act as a policeman trying to ensure a regional peace (impossible really). Thus when France was beating up on England I attacked France to weaken them and give England a go. It worked a little too well and France suffered civil wars and then collapsed.

England 120 years later had become quite powerful while I had been weakened by attacks from the horde - they took novgorod, livonia, lithuania & finland (it had a loyalist uprising which booted them out) but I had suffered many casualties and lost my best general so I was not particularly strong. I also restricted my trade for a challenge relying mostly on mining/farm income.

England then invaded Denmark and I marched in to boot them out and save my small neighbour and long term ally.

This was a stupendous mistake as although I won the battle, England, with naval superiority, landed thousands of troops led by seasoned generals on the mainland and proceeded to give me a hiding. I cannot win unless the English are stopped somehow but I am glad I stuck to my roleplaying as it has provided a new angle to my MTW.

[chunkynut]

I had the same problem of (as HRE) my Italian allies got excomed and i thought no my wars with France, Hungary and the Danes need my attention. So rather than swipe those nice seaside provs that the italians hold i beat france into submission (idiots shouldn't have attacked me), destroyed the danes and moved the Hungarians into wallach(sp?).

Italians within the next 10 years start a naval war and sink most of my Med trade fleet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

10 years after that France has provience England have no continetal territories and the italians only hope is a loyalist rebellian in serbia.

The italians made me made, loadsa hard earned florins in that fleet went down.

Now i have most all of north, west, central and am pushing south into italy. Polish, French and most of italian provs are mine. The year must be just shy of 1175 and i am the catholic superpower, i am enjoying my first HRE campaign

(Just gotta watch out for those pesky eygptions only buffered by a small bysant force )

I plan to RP my next campaign under the same rules as said above, short term goals under each kings vices and virtues.

[solypsist]

I usually try to roleplay, but eventually my Byz empire extends all the way to Sweden and I have to face reality and just drop all pretense

[kataphraktoi]

Solypist how true,

I tell myself never to extend the Byz empire west but Siciliy was too Greek and orthodox to not conquer, then after that Sardinia and Corsica was appropiated for raiding purposes, next Venice, realpolitik stuffs all ideals and principles.

My goals are usually to maintain the Balkans and Asia Minor but defenceless territories like Egypt, Tripoli, Antioch are too good to not be tempted. must resist nex time.

[econ21]

As an aside (I'm dragging the thread off-topic, but I did start it), do any of you Byzantine players have an opinion of the historical veracity of your units? I've been doing some researching, not focusing yet on Byzantines but get the impression that in the MTW period there were no kats or sword/shield "Byzantine infantry". It seems the Byzantines hired "Frankish" (ie European) knights for heavy cav and relied on archery/spears for their foot. Or do I have the wrong impression?

[spmetla]

I always play as the HRE and try to role play. I "manage" my daughters and pretend to be offended when they are denied marriage. I try to maintain a balance of power in europe. Only the italians i pick on because if feel italy should be tucked back under the imperial fold.
When my emperors are drunk there are taverns built in all provinces http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I find it much more fun, it also is nice micromanaging people. like unstart generals are banished or forced to crusade.

I just wish that there were more factions to the east to balance that out.

[kataphraktoi]

elwe

I did the same thing too

Conquered the borders of the Romans at a certain part of their history and just defend it.

I'v done the Justinian reconquest goal

Ive done the Eastern Roman Empire in 395 goal

Its true that its hard to defend those long borders but hey thats what the real Byzantines did back then.

The best part is ruling a realm that kicks butt

For some reason i developed a liking for assasinating princesses if my princes can't have em then I will I kill them

[Elwe]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Feb. 15 2003,09:06)]As an aside (I'm dragging the thread off-topic, but I did start it), do any of you Byzantine players have an opinion of the historical veracity of your units? I've been doing some researching, not focusing yet on Byzantines but get the impression that in the MTW period there were no kats or sword/shield "Byzantine infantry". It seems the Byzantines hired "Frankish" (ie European) knights for heavy cav and relied on archery/spears for their foot. Or do I have the wrong impression?
I've done a bit of reading on the latter Roman Empire lately, although unfortunately I haven't found too much on the specific make-up of the armies of the time in any great detail - even in a book titled The Byzantine Wars.

However, that said, I do believe that some of the MTW Byzantine units are accurate. Kataphraktoi did exist in that time period (at least up until the mid 1200's). You are correct in that they hired a lot of Frankish and Turkic mercenary cavalry, but the infantry was for the most part 'local'. My sources did seem to imply that the standard equipment for their infantry was spears. Varangian Guard also most certainly did exist.

One thing I would have liked to see was the inclusion of skirmishing slingers as a missile unit, as they were still used in the Middle Ages. They did have archers, but not so many that you could say they were 'standard'.

As yet, I have not found any reference to the Pronioi, but that could just be a fault of the books I have read to date.

Cheers.

[bakdal]

I'll try to conclude a bit on this interesting thread:

Some (not many, apparantly) try to actively roleplaying the game.

A definition could be: "Roleplaying is for an individual player to introduce non-game rules to a campaign, (that affects the goals of the campaign, and the ongoing decision making)"

The definition could end before the...ehhmm...(), whatever it is called

There seems to be two main types of roleplaying, and according to the definition, they differ in the origin of the non-game rules:

1) Strategic roleplaying
You set certain goals and limitations for yourself, before the game starts.

2) Opportunistic roleplaying
You take events within the game as litterally actions. For instanse, a faction denying a marriage proposal can offend you, a paranoid king (v&v's)makes you place at least one assasin in every province etc.

If there's any interest for it, you can mail me expamples of strategic and opportunistic rules, and I will gather the expamples in a file we can place for download. Other distinctions than the above mentioned will be recieved too.

Mail me at bakdal@12move.dk

Because of this suggested file, I've started a new thread, with the excact same content as this reply.

Bakdal