Out of character thread III

Just checking on the Edicts proposed, it seems:

E1.1 is for own crusade as TC proposed + limit on expansion

E1.3 is identically for own crusade as TC proposed but with limit on expansion struck out

What I am worried about is suppose there is a majority for our own crusade as TC proposed, both motions might still fail if those who want limits vote against E1.3 and those that don't want limits vote against E1.1.

To avoid this, I think those in favour of our own crusade as TC with limits on expansion proposed should vote for both edicts. If E1.1 passes, that will limit our expansion even if E1.3 passes with more votes.

If factionheir or anyone wants to block the limit on expansion should E1.1 pass, I think we need a separate edict only concerned with there being no limits on expansion. If that separate edict passes with more votes, it would override the no limit clause on E1.1.

Sorry if this is nitpicking or anal, but it is best to get this clear in advance of the voting as confusion can lead to people to vote against what they want or to bad blood after the polls have opened.

You might as well use a Diplomat and move the same one around during the start of a new term and give out the money in exchange for map info or something else trivial that they gotta accept.
You can use the same Diplomat by using character_reset which resets movement and actions.
Just make sure you get it right the first time you talk to a faction that turn to give them the money or else they won't be interested and you get to go back next turn.

Also, the AI needs way longer than 10 turns to spend 100000. Just gotta see when HRE becomes 2nd or 1st in the financial rankings at the end turn report.

Erm why would E1.1 be in effect if E1.3 passes with more votes? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Actually what would be best if you want to split it up is to have a separate edict for each of the points in TC's original E1.1


Btw, I just realized E1.1 #6 actually means that all edicts no matter what they say are in effect if that edict is passed?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Erm why would E1.1 be in effect if E1.3 passes with more votes?

---

Because E1.3 does not contradict E1.1. If I am reading them right, E1.3 is identical to E1.1 except it does not have clause 5.

As currently written:

People who want a crusade with limits on expansion should vote for E1.1 and E1.3.

People who want a crusade but no limits on expansion should vote against E1.1 and for E1.3.

People who do not want a crusade should vote against both.

Quote:

---

Actually what would be best if you want to split it up is to have a separate edict for each of the points in TC's original E1.1

---

Perhaps it would be simplest if E1.1 is reduced to clause 5 and E1.3 is left as is to refer to the rest of TCs proposal.

That way the vote on E1.1 is a vote on limits to expansion and the vote on E1.3 is a vote on the crusade.

Quote:

---

You might as well use a Diplomat and move the same one around during the start of a new term and give out the money in exchange for map info or something else trivial that they gotta accept.

---

I think pressing end turn and letting the script do it would be easier than manually getting a diplomat to each faction.

Quote:

---

Also, the AI needs way longer than 10 turns to spend 100000.

---

We were making around 8500 per turn profit according to TC's in character reply to Ignoramus. Effectively giving 10000 per turn to the AI may just level them up to around our position. If they end up with a large unspent balance, I am not sure that's a problem.

It is if you capture a lot of their troops and ransom them back. AI almsot always pays up if it has large excess cash and this way we are basically cheating the money back onto our accounts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

It is if you capture a lot of their troops and ransom them back. AI almsot always pays up if it has large excess cash and this way we are basically cheating the money back onto our accounts

---

OK, so I should add a "no ransoming" proviso into the Amendment? Chivalrous generals probably should release prisoners anyway, as I have heard that trying to ransom when the AI has no cash can lead you to pick up dread traits - you get blamed for the deaths.

Nope, doesn't happen. I even tried that by modding the factionstanding file which controls the reputation gain/loss by release/execution and by rep stayed at immaculate even when ransom for large armies was repeatedly refused. Therefore you won't pick up dread traits either (linked to same trigger)
But ransoming is something which is part of the game and a good idea if you don't want to be any more chivalrous than you are or don't want to become dreadful. A middle path in a way. Forbidding that would be... not so great.

Regarding Edict voting, there's a simpler way to do this. We can change E1.1 to remove the expansion limits, then get rid of E1.3 altogether and vote on a new Edict that is simply expansion limits. That way the vote on Crusade and the vote on expansion are totally separate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Regarding Edict voting, there's a simpler way to do this. We can change E1.1 to remove the expansion limits, then get rid of E1.3 altogether and vote on a new Edict that is simply expansion limits. That way the vote on Crusade and the vote on expansion are totally separate.

---

OK, sounds like a plan: Max can amend E1.1; I'll propose clause 5 as a separate edict; Factionheir can you withdraw E1.3 please?

We have currently two different edicts as 1.5 Mine and Econ´s.:book:

I just edited my edict to be 1.7...but I'm not sure it that was the right thing to do, I'm so confused...just me know what is should be and I'll make it that.

I think Econ will edit his edict into 1.6,so you did the right thing by renaming yours as 1.7,:yes: I wonder will Tincow and Overknight will still support 1.5 after the numbers have been chanced.:clown:

Already changed mine Kagemusha. :laugh4:

It's funny, no matter who's playing Dietrich, Otto and he lock horns. . .must be destiny.

Edit: Don't worry Stuperman, econ's offline, once he's back on he'll edit his edict number. You did the right thing.

Well, I'm off, have fun til Thursday and don't get us slaughtered. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Alread changed mine Kagemusha. :laugh4:

It's funny, no matter who's playing Dietrich, Otto and he lock horns. . .must be destiny.

Edit: Don't worry Stuperman, econ's offline, once he's back on he'll edit his edict number. You did the right thing.

---

I guess that must be right.But i guess poor old Dietrich will not be long around anymore to harass Otto.:shame: Maybe he should start hounting you guys after his death.:whip:Take care Ituralde and all the best to your family.

Done withdrawing. Actually TC coulda just dropped his E1.1 and left E1.3 intact :p Evil chancellor.


BTW, shouldnt the charteramendment since its OOC be discussed and voted on in this topic instead? Doesn't make much sense to put it into the IC diet. (TC will vote against it according to his starting statements :D )

When will the last 3 battle reports be finished? Want something to read!
Oh, and the Genoa siege does not even have a placeholder

Well, we're in an emergency session so the game won't be picked up for another day at least, so I have time.

Ah, but since you posted the pope is dead message I thought you took Genoa already?

I did, I meant that I have time to do the report before someone else posts a different report.

So this is completely off-topic, but I'll post it here anyhow. I'm used to playing Medieval 2 and Rome with the medium settings, and I pretty much owned every battle no matter the odds. I know this is an easy thing to do. So to prep for this pbm I decided to start doing some very hard custom battles and even strength smaller armies I'm just dandy. However, when it comes to the larger battles I pretty much get owned in the face. Also I was doing a seige of Valencia on hard with the Spaniards, and I pretty much got tore a new one. I've been reading strats and such and trying to adapt, but if you all have any pointers I'd really appreciate it. Also, replays of seiges or open field battles would really help out. I don't mind just being a diplomat of sorts in the pbm because I don't want to gimp the HRE. However, I'd really like to improve the military strategy part of my Medieval abilities. So any and all help would be appreciated. Also, later tonight the 7th elector of Swabia will be making an appearance at the Diet. I just need to read all of the debate concerning the crusades and such.

In large battles, the pause button is quite handy to give orders in time.
In siege battles, you always want to bring more troops than the defender unless he is sallying. In that case, you would want to have more cavalry than he does to run down the units as they come out.
If you are siege attacking, try to have at least 1 unit with siege equipment on each side (or at least 3 sides) of the settlement to make breaching of any one side easier. Move then on to townsquare which causes all units to move back to townswaure which is the perfect opportunity to launch an attack on all walls and get into their back while holding the square.

In general, use cavalry in 2 or 3 ranks and charge the second row of enemy infantry as this will kill the first row. Use infantry to fight infantry and flank cavalry. Always take out the enemy siege weaponry first if you can, and this should be easy with cavalry.

OK... i have two things

Idk if the adding money to the AI is still being comsidered... but isnt it if you say... add_money faction name amount... that it gives it to the other faction?

and if we do keep Rome... which House will get it?... seems a big prize for just one house... lol

I am thinking Rome will stay with the Kaiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArchdukeEvan

add_money faction name amount... that it gives it to the other faction?

---

That is the theory, but it does not work.
For example you can try:
add_money hungary 100
add_money Hungary 100
add_money HUNGARY 100
add_money ai_hungary 100
add_money ai_faction 100

and none of these will work even with hungary alive.

I agree that Rome will most likely stay in Imperial (i.e. non-house) hands. I can only imagine the maelstrom stirred up if it was given to to a Duchy.

Does anyone have anything they'd like to propose, second or discuss in the Diet? We've got ~16 hours until voting begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

add_money hungary 100
...

and none of these will work even with hungary alive.

---

I don't suppose you tried:

add money hungary, 100

That's the syntax for adding money to AI factions in RTW scripts. But like the "control" command, it may only work in scripts, not via the consol.

econ21, if the add money Amendment passes, just take the save and do whatever you need to do to it. PM me with the new save version when you're done.

I would like to point out that lilirishman1986 has not logged on in several days. If he does not participate in the Emergency Session vote, I would like to see his avatar, Gerhard Steffen, assigned to someone else. We have a shortage of them at the moment and they should be given to active players.

econ21, only take 19 with you as Hans will be assigned to your stack as he comes of age (or spawn on the bottom of the ocean)