OverKnight: You'll have to undo that sally. Armies led by non-avatars have to be auto-resolved.
Printable View
OverKnight: You'll have to undo that sally. Armies led by non-avatars have to be auto-resolved.
Hugues and his army were in the battle as reinforcements. I initiated the attack from Staufen to have the castle as the battle site.
If this is a problem, I can fall back to the last save.
Edit: I fought in a similar fashion relieving Adana in KotR.
Mea culpa. I just saw the screenshot of the battle results in the Seneschal's thread, and it only list the Captain, not Hugues.
There's still a problem with that battle but we can keep it all IC : OK initiate the battle with units from Staufen which belongs to the King's demesne and Philippe's SOT proscribes such usage of his units ("do not move").
But as I said all this can be solved IC... I see no true rules violation here, only a non-respect of Philippe's SOT
@ Igno: No worries, this is a grey area. If I wasn't facing horrible odds, I probably wouldn't have done it.
Edit:
:oops: Ummm, they were going to die anyway? I hadn't even thought of that. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
Bad vassal, no biscuit.
Staufen hasn't been the object of any edicts for conquest, has it? So while it awaits ratification any troops in it would belong to Hugues.
Unfortunately, having reviewed the rules, if this is true, there's not supposed to be any recruitment at an "unsanctioned" settlement before its ratification. The peasant archers of the garrison were recruited at Staufen.
So, either I've violated Tristan's SoT post, or I used an illegally recruited unit in the battle. I asked AG IC to recruit the unit so Staufen wouldn't be steam rolled and to slow the Germans. So if it hadn't been recruited, and the rule followed, Staufen would have fallen on the previous AI turn.
My brain hurts.
Edit:
The relevant passage:
OK, from my point of view, you're right in saying that the unit has been illegally recruited, though Staufen belongs to you.
So in fact Staufen should have fallen... This can still be corrected if we go back to the previous save and if we provoke a sally which results in a defeat...
I'll take Staufen out of my SOT...
So Staufen belongs to me, but it fell a turn ago?
Yay?
Let's see what Zim has to say. For now I've put spoiler tags around my Conseil comment after the battle since it may not have happened.
I certainly realised that Staufen should not have had any troops recruited in it.
Ramses, called me on it and I said he can take it IC and we could thrash it out. I have a pretty good IC case to present. Subsequently that is as far as it went. :beam:
Now, having one of us play a battle where a non-avatar was leading, seems like bending our rule set to allow us to yet again thrash the AI.
I don't agree with that.
The last thing we need right now is to begin "greying" up things which then allow us to exploit our ability to reach incredible results on the battle field.
I mean it's about 20 to 1 casualty rates to date, which is why I'm also a little dubious with Tristan explaining how he charges head on into set spear units and wins causing total destruction.
I didn't make any further comment before after making my initial comment, but, are we trying to make this difficult for ourselves or not?
Because our actions seem inconsistent if we are in fact trying to make it difficult for ourselves. Of course it needs to be determined IF that is our aim.
If Tristan has the ability to use the "pause" button to effect this tactic so precisely, then my question would be.
If you were not to use the "pause" button, would you still engage in this tactic?
This is a moral debate and it's in good faith from me to simply ask questions which relate to what we are "about" in this game.
Are we power gaming? Are we getting too competitive amongst ourselves, are we trying to give the AI a fighting chance? Because if the AI presents absolutely no threat, at all, we might have some long term issues.
It goes towards playing ahead with the save as well. Are we doing this?
So, this should be interesting. :balloon2:
Yurgh. . .good points.
Well, let's revert to the last save then. I'm not going to argue since it turns out I'm on dubious ground to begin with. :juggle2:
I apologize for the inconvenience and for holding up the game.
AG, when you take the real save, could you move Hugues to the Moselle ford, the one south of Metz?
Edit: Zim still has the save, FYI.
To refer to my use of the "pause" button, I use it somply because I'm no computer... I cannot compute in real time and click and I'm not the only one that is using the option seeing some of the screenshots in the battle reports thread...
Factionheir got lots of credit for his use of cavalry without anyone questioning how he achieved such outstanding results, so I find these "accusations" (for lack of a better word) a bit bitter to swallow...
Though some may argue it is just a question of "when" rather than "how"...
And about difficulty, the exact reason why I'm fighting the way I do is to do just that : give myself some challenge that I would not have with a full stack under my command... It is only my avatar I'm putting at risk there, or mostly...
And I think I've done everything I could to up the difficulty by slowing recruitment (Edict 1.1) or declaring war at the worst of times against one of te most powerful factions of the game...
Hi Tristan,
I asked point blank how FH got his results. He never told me.
I think he realised I would have asked him why he finds it necessary to use a pause function to micro manage something that is certainly not a design of the game.
At least I'd like to get that out of the way.
I guess we will agree to disagree, I use the pause button because you are correct, I need to co-ordinate my units and it gets too hectic on many occasions.
What I do not do, is use it to achieve results that can only be accomplished by using it.
If you can pull if off not using the pause button then all power to you, but that would be much harder proposition I would assume as it requires the pause button to achieve.
If you could do it without using the pause button then it would draw massive amounts of your attention away from a full stack battle to achieve this...which would probably lead to other issues with the rest of the battle. This could be seen as an acceptable consequence of trying to achieve such results with cavalry.
So I am genuinely curious, can you do this without using the pause button? And what do you think your odds would be with, or without using the pause function as a comparison?
I can do it without using the pause button and in fact do most times... It frankly depends on where the camera is pointing at the moment of the shock.
If it is placed behind the victims of the charge and I can send the charging unit right back, I won't use Pause... But if I have to turn the camera around to face an unoccupied section of the battlefield, then I'll use Pause...
I should never have answered Econ's question and explained how I did it... Being Frank doesn't pay...(pardon the pun)
Looks like Staufen should have fallen. Perhaps from an IC perspective we could pretend that peasant archers were recruited, but as the settlement had not been in French hands long they were disloyal and opened the gates...
I think the rules are pretty clear that a player can fight a battle started by a captain; the player just has to be "involved" rather than initiate the attack:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
However, they are also pretty clear that we cannot recruit in provinces that are not ratified:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Conquered rebel provinces can be regarded as ratified, but not German. I think this rule was supposed to represent "physics" rather than "politics" and to slow us down vs the AI. So I am not sure we should "play on" and deal with it in character. Staufen seems to be a prime case of where we are really stretching things to rush the AI - not even properly defending our conquests - so us taking a hit seems justified. I vote we back up before OKs move and delete the archer recruit.
BTW, I think by the rules Staufen is the King's unless OK refused to hand it over at the time of conquest. The timing matters here - we debated it and although there was disagreement, I think the rules as written reflect the onus on a "rebel" noble to come out and openly defy the King at the time of conquest rather play a waiting game.
The first part is hardly doable as it would mean going back to the final save of 1092 and have most of us re-do our moves, including Ramses' fight against Mandorf (which would be shame, with those cool pics). Better to move Ok back and make a sally with the Staufen garrison, sally which is doomed to fail on auto-resolve thus handing Staufen on a platter to te Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
As to the second part, that is how I read the rules at first but 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.
Also, the way the sally situation was played (regardless of Staufen's ownership) is that I don't think we should allow the players to play battles initiated by captain-led stacks even if their avatars are brought in as reinforcements. Let them initiate those battles... Different from when an avatar is brought in as reinforcement through an AI assault on a captain-led stack... Then we should (and we did) allow for the avatar to play the battle...
I agree with Tristan's points in his post above.
I realise now I should have not recruited at all, which means there would have been no siege for the Germans to conduct. Tristan's solution is the best "current" save solution.
The land allocation is also how I've been reading it and dealing with construction and recruitment, except of course Staufen.
I'd prefer us to have the player avatar lead the attack, therefore limiting us in some fashion.
@ Tristan, I am glad you were frank about the situation.
I might not agree with it, but certainly confirming you can pull if off without the pause button on occasion makes things a little more palatable.
I'd just prefer you didn't use the pause button at all to conduct this tactic. :yes:
-EDIT-
I wont get to the save until Friday early evening Swiss time so there will be some time for reorganising the save for everyone.
While I think the charge trick is neat it seems like we're getting a bit gamey. Is this the norm because Vladimir loves the ballista sally.
wtf is the ballista sally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
You don't want to know...
Some things are better left unsaid...:yes:
I certainly have that thought flittering through my head Tristan :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
I'd say the description would lead to statements I made regarding playing ahead with the save as well.
Still I have the ability to "know", and not use. :beam:
Having our sallying forces die seems to be the right decision at this junction. It's a learning process and nobody was hurt, so that should be the smoothest solution.
Concerning the gamey debate. I'd put my own position as leaning towards AG. I'm glad we haven't seen any single character take down entire cities as happened way too often for my taste in LotR, so I'm happy with that. Then again I don't mind people fighting the AI the best way they know how. There's a certain risk involved in Tristans tactic for example, and also a certain amount of skill. I'm sure I'd get my general slaugthered in no time that way. To each his own as long as it doesn't end up too lopsided it's fine by me.
And if the AI is no challenge there's always Civil War too! :evilgrin:
OK, my bad. Re-reading the rules, I can see Zim's interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
I guess we need Zim's ruling on this, as I think the rules are ambiguous on this at present. In fact, now I can't even find in the rules how we decide which player fights the battle. I think we discussed it just before the game and agreed it was who the computer said commanded. That is fine for single stack battles, but leads to ambiguities in cases such as the now reversed Staufen sally. I agree there is a lot to be said for autoresolving Captain initiated attacks. We did not do that in KotR, but on reflection the main use of Captain initiated attacks seems to be exploit the weak (broken?) AI when facing a sally or to get around restrictions on historical army composition etc.Quote:
Also, the way the sally situation was played (regardless of Staufen's ownership) is that I don't think we should allow the players to play battles initiated by captain-led stacks even if their avatars are brought in as reinforcements.
Sorry for opening a can of worms with my question about cavalry tactics. I was not making an accusation, just trying to understand the game mechanics. I never understood how Factionheir got the results he did with his cavalry (although until this PBM, it has never entered my mind to try to defeat whole armies with just one BG), so I was curious. I can understand withdrawing and re-charging to get the charge bonus. That just sounds like sound tactics. But is there something special about withdrawing on the moment of impact? Is it just a matter of min-maxing - allowing you to get one big hit on the spears and giving them at best only a little chance to hit back weakly at you? If that's all there is too it, it does not seem too much of an exploit, although I doubt in real life cavalry would be so precise.Quote:
Factionheir got lots of credit for his use of cavalry without anyone questioning how he achieved such outstanding results, so I find these "accusations" (for lack of a better word) a bit bitter to swallow...
Though some may argue it is just a question of "when" rather than "how"...
And about difficulty, the exact reason why I'm fighting the way I do is to do just that : give myself some challenge that I would not have with a full stack under my command... It is only my avatar I'm putting at risk there, or mostly...
I have a couple of follow up questions on game mechanics players might help me with:
(1) I always thought there were "reverse impact" casualties on charging cavalry (at least attacking spears frontally) - ie that cavalry lose extra men at the moment of impact. Is that people's experience too? Or is it just my imagination? If it you do lose cavalry on impact, surely that would raise the cost of repeatedly charging and withdrawing? Even if it were true, I guess the 2HPs of the BGs insulate you from that to some extent.
(2) I always thought braced spears negated the charge bonus of cavalry attacking them frontally. Is that true? If it is true, I can't see the charge and withdraw tactic having any benefit if applied frontally against them. If so, I guess FH and Tristan etc just avoid charging braced spears frontally. Or maybe it was only true in the older games (STW, MTW)?
Looking at the battle reports, my eyebrows do rise at seeing the King repeatedly leaving a decent army behind him to go and fight alone at 1-10 odds. It might be challenging for you, but it seems odd in character and out of character just brings home the feebleness of the AI. However, you can take that with a pinch of salt. I guess Philippe is just a bad ass (I have read historical accounts of a few knights defeating much larger numbers of foot). Players are free to play in the style they wish to. If we start telling each other what to do OOC, we will stop having fun. If I get a chance tonight, I may try out your tactics against the German remnants you mentioned in Flanders.
Exactly... That's how I see it works... Been doing it since Methodios' times and with success...Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
You'll notice that my BG unit generally doesn't leave the field unscathed, nor does Philippe (who is two steps up the scars trait line...).
I'll agree that in RL there is no way a charge could be so precise but with so many other things ingame which would be different in RL, I don't think this matters much... Put it down to excellent command :yes:
To answer your questions, Econ :
1/ That may be true but differs on experience. Ramses seems to have observed this happening while I didn't notice it. All the casualties, Philippe's BG incurred were due to the withdrawal maneuver or simply remaining too long into the spears.
2/I don't know if spears negate the charge bonus but get a charge into braced spears (not pikes, mind you) and you'll still make a killing. A thing I try to avoid to the best of my abilities, still. I mostly try to get my charges when the spears are reforming or in movement, thus catching them "un-braced"...
As to Philippe going to fight by himself, the first battle was Reims (and was an IC ambush as detailed in the battle report), the second was fighting remnants of the Antwerp siege relief force, a task that Philippe thought was his alone.
I see him as a true warrior-king, intent on preserving the lives of his soldiers and putting his life on the line for that. As for OOC concerns, if you are amazed at my antics, I'm much more amazed by what Ramses or OK are able to accomplish...
Good luck in your German hunting...
A 'ballista sally' isn't all that bad, really, because anytime you sally against the AI you're abusing. The AI's sally behavior can best be described as: Pull back out of tower range, form up, and wait. Respond only to massive casualties or the loss of all ranged troops. It's the nature of the game that if you sally you are taking advantage of bad AI and you simply can't help it.
It's called a ballista (Or catapult, or any extra long range troops, or cannon towers) sally because if you have a ballista the AI will sit there and let you kill them until you run out of ammo. Cannon towers are, IMHO, a horrific exploit of the AI under almost all circumstances and we should GA to never build them and sell them when we capture them at settlements. I sallied out of a cannon tower city in KotR, towers built by the Danish AI IIRC, and I abandoned the walls as fast as possible specifically so I could avoid the cannon tower abuse.
I do use pause, but if there were a way to turn it off for all players I would be okay with that. It would definitely change the way I approach battles involving more than 5 companies on each side, because when you get that large you can't manage all those men in the spread out manner necessary to correctly manipulate the AI for heavy cavalry charges. When I can get the Marseille battle posted you'll see what I mean.
Unfortunately, with replays working inconsistently, if we take out pause it will be difficult to get good screenshots for battle reports. I'm kinda okay with that, although I do love reading them, because it's about playing the game first, right? I remember some of FH's battles, and (IMHO) FH was a master of manipulating AI morale. If you understand exactly the factors involved in a unit's morale equation you can probably cause it to rout almost before it has a chance to kill any of your men. The AI does little or nothing to 'protect' it's morale situation.
As far as Staufen, I did call AG 'in character' on it, but I saw it more as leverage and less as a rules violation. Staufen belongs to the King, and I presumed if the King ordered something done there that it was okay to do it... but I'm not the rules expert. I thought prioritized recruitment had to go ahead of construction, but I can't find that anywhere in the rules either. :2thumbsup:
:egypt:
1. If you watch a cavalry charge striking a line of set spears in slow motion you'll see that a certain percentage of the cavalry are unhorsed on impact (They fly right over the horse's head). One of the reasons that other mods, Stainless Steel for example, made heavy cavalry companies smaller is so that this number would have a larger effect. Even 2 HP cavalry (Or more than 2, ala Broken Crescent) suffer this effect, hitpoints are no guard against it. I believe it happens even to generals, although I don't have any direct evidence in screenshots to prove it, but it's pretty simple to avoid losing your general. Make your cavalry line so that your general is lined up to 'wrap' the edge of the spear formation. That way his charge doesn't hit the front of the line and he won't be unhorsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
2. To the extent of my knowledge this is correct only at the moment of impact, as soon as the formation breaks open, which happens almost instantly, the remaining cavalry complete their charge as normal. The more dense the formation the better it holds form against cavalry. Actually the best way to take a BG's charge, from a player's perspective, is to have to overlapping companies of spears set at an angel (A wide V for 2 companies, or for schiltrom one braced square and two bobs o_o). The charge will only strike one company of spears properly, and as soon as the charge hits you order the second company to engage at will against targets that are still trying to fight their way into the braced spears.
You need to keep in mind that, even with this info, spears do far better against a charge than other infantry. I had two companies of mounted sergeants charge some DFKs at Marseille. They lost 3men and left only 6 of the DFKs behind because the DFKs had effectively no defense. If I had pulled the charge trick off correctly I wouldn't have needed to lose any men, or perhaps just one as they withdrew, but I was watching another part of the battle.
:egypt:
I think it would be a good idea to keep a list of OOC Rules changes to propose next session. I already mentioned forbidding us from converting castles/cities, and I think we should also forbid any captain-led stacks from initiating battles. I definitely agree with AG's speech on making things hard for us.
I'm actually rather worried about our rate of expansion. In KotR we took three settlements our first ten turns, in LotR it was eleven. So far we stand at nine, but there's still time for another two. It's worrisome.
I think Captain led stacks could be used against brigands on our lands but not against other factions.
Seconded.
-edit- re: Cecil's post.
Well that's pretty depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP
Agreed. Are there any mods that focus soley on the AI which we could install on top of LTC Gold?Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Is there a realism mod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil XIX
Hey, don't laugh. It's how I took over Europe as Norway. :norway:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
While my comment might be considered moot, since I have only played one battle in LotR and none in KotF, I never use the pause button, except when I have to leave the computer with a battle running. I've been playing like that ever since STW and that's how I'm used to play.
As such, I'm constantly amazed at some the results some of you guys get and sometimes a bit worried. I'm hoping we don't get too big, because in LotR that made owning land much less interesting and much less a factor.
Swords were always weak vs cavalry, but with the mod DFK stats have been nerfed quite a bit. I'm not a great fan of the change as it seems to be for "balance" rather than realism. But it's not that bad for gameplay. DFKs used to be pretty uber. Now they are just offensive infantry roughly equal to armoured spears, who are defensive/anti-cavalry infantry. They will have their role e.g. in sieges, I am sure; just not in receiving a cavalry charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I don't think it's a matter of the AI so much. From Shogun onwards, a good player has always been able to get a lot done with their bodyguard(s) against the AI. (Their bodyguards as part of their army - this solo bodyguard army concept is new to me). It's just we have very good players and the early AI has not built up so much, so the advantage is more noticeable: the AI is not fielding full stacks and their troops are largely lowest tier. I remember in KotR towards the end, the Egyptians started fielding large elite armies that made me blanche (Mameluke horse archers plus those scarey axe wielding dudes).Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilXIX
Given what I have learnt about LotR and from this game, if we were starting again, I would have suggested nerfing bodyguards a little. What the realism mods for RTW gravitated towards, IIRC, is give them one hit point not two and make them smaller, say halve them. That would cut their power statistically to 25% of what it is now.
Raising the base morale of units might also help as I suspect part of what is going on is players engineering a AI morale collapse. There are probably large morale penalties from having cavalry charging your rear, seeing friends rout etc. The RTW realism mods generally give harder battles because the AI clings on, rather than routing early.
I am not sure if we want to make such changes now that the game has started, but it probably would not be hard - just a matter of editing one txt file. Maybe we could consider it as a rules change at the next Conseil?
(a) Reduce bodyguard units to one hitpoint.
(b) Half the unit size of bodyguards.
(c) Add 10 to each unit's morale.
But who knows, maybe attitudes will change when we start seeing player generals die (as they did quite often in KotR and LotR).
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 :clown:
More important are those traits and ancillaries that give extra hitpoints.
I believe that the stats for RBG units are good but not great. What truly sets them apart are the hitpoints and ability to regenerate. Consider that if you half the hitpoints you diminish their strength by more than half.
Reducing hitpoints and unit size may be too much.
I'd support halfing the unit size, but I think reducing the hitpoints is a bit much.
I don't have much to add..... I am fine with whatever happens. I was kind of amazed at some of the things people have been pulling off. I have always been far to timid when it came to bodyguards I guess.....:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I withhold my judgement until I've fought a battle myself. I'm always afraid of loosing my general. While most of us are very capable of handling even weakened bodyguards we don't want it to turn into frustration for those of us who aren't as uber.
This was the screenshot that got me thinking about nerfing bodyguards:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Even though Tristan was outnumbered nearly 10:1, the computer thought the battle was even (1:1) because bodyguards are just so formiddable.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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:
The mounted sergeants spawned in Paris after we completed a mission. Since they spawned in a Royal holding, they belong to the King.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.
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.
But then you would have to deal with me. :whip::evilgrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.
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:
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:.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My thoughts on the game so far almost mirrors yours, Econ...Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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:
:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I do love the definition of "sporting." :grin:
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.
Keep in mind it's an important holiday weekend in the US.
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?
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.
Yeah I would go with that.
I think you have a pretty valid case in the game. :2thumbsup:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
From my perspective I had exactly the same impression.
Suddenly, I'm like; "Damn I need to write up a summary...already?!"
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?
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.
*sarcasm on*
Tristan....
exposed...
what game are we playing?
Have we switched to chequers while I was away?
:egypt:
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:
I noticed Mandorf is now Kaiser... Glad it's one of the original six.
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:
Somehow, the Pope had a hand in this.
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.
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.
Okay, the battle report for Marseille is up. I hope it makes sense, wrote it rather quickly. :laugh4:
:egypt:
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.