V&V OOC/Signup Thread I

Good eye. I've been rereading the charter and am still amazed how easily I miss things on the earlier readings.

Although, using the same "does it make sense IC test" for the rules as has been used earlier this turn, there's no reason someone might not hide their hostilities until after entering a city and then start fighting in the streets to depose a rebel.

6.11, 6.12., now 7.1. It's been a rough turn for the Charter. Makes me wonder how active this thread and/or the Diet one would be if PK were still around. I recall he was quite passionate when it came to rules disputes. :beam:

And to keep it IC, do you believe Lothar fool enough to let someone he just wronged with his whole army through his gates ?

And I find myself wondering at times if I'm not suffering from PK-possession...

It may have been better if all this had been kept IC, it would have provided some much needed heated debate in the Diet

Or that the Prinz would be fool enough to watch you march into Milan and then back out after warning him?

I think PK might have been more antiloophole, or maybe it changed depending on how reasonable he thought the loophole was. I remember my avatar's namesake the original von Essen. From nervous youngster to lawyer in the span of a couple posts. :laugh4:

One way or another Diet style threads were definately always interesting with him around...

I disagree in that we're running into some major OOC issues, with players feeling cheated rather than just their characters. With have a system where certain rules count but others only do if we enforce them in game, but they're not really distinguished in the rule set so we don't know which is which. Almost everything is stated as if absolute.

My examples of how the Prinz could have walked into Milan before declaring war or Elberhard just bribing and seizing troops lent to him make just as much sense as Zirn's flouting of multiple rules for IC reasons (and use similar logic of what might be "reasonable" IC). But, really, people can come up with IC counter arguments to all of those (and against the counter arguments) forever. It wouldn't make for a stable or fun game. If some rules aren't really rules we need to have at least some vague idea of which are which and not guess which will be ignored to our disadvantage.

If Cecil decides everything Zirn has done is fine I'll be aggravated but I'll at least be happy if we get some clarification on the rules, rather than having anyone think certain characters are bound by rules and others aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Tristan_

And to keep it IC, do you believe Lothar fool enough to let someone he just wronged with his whole army through his gates ?

And I find myself wondering at times if I'm not suffering from PK-possession...

It may have been better if all this had been kept IC, it would have provided some much needed heated debate in the Diet

---

seems like a hot discussion :)

for some diversion of all this, 2 questions:

what install should i do to be able to participate?
how can i participate while waiting for a character (and does that means once i get an avatar, i have to 'disband' my imgainary one?)

and to really go off-topic:
i'm suprised no one has probed for interest in a s2 pbm :p

intermittent heated rules discussions seems to be a sign of how much people care about the games. :clown:

-It's Lands to Conquer Gold I believe.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=137614

Also there's a file that affects the ingame names. Here's the link to it and the post that explains what file it replaces.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053197420

http://www.mediafire.com/?5rce4230cbx1p1c

Lastly, the most complicated change is to make the Holy Roman Empire's family tree appear properly (The LTC mods sets them up a bit like the Teutons in the Teutonic Campaign).

Go to your Lands To Conquer folder, then to data/descr_sm_factions and open it with notepad. The HRE will be the third faction down from the top. Change the "has_family_tree" from no to yes and save.

-You can make up an elector to particpate in Diet discussions, stories, etc. It might be possible to talk to Cecil about taking up an agent as a character, although I'm not sure if they're doing that in this game (not sure it's come up, actually...). No need to retire a character who isn't represented in game once you pick up a general. Plenty of players have "extra" characters that may represent their main ones in the Diet, or appear in stories.

-I've thought about starting a thread about it to see how people think S2 would work for an rpg. I'm thinking it might be better to wait until the game receives some patches before actually starting the game, though. You never know when they might throw a non save game compatible patch at us. It might also be interesting to see what the expansion will be first as well, since it might add factions or broaden the scope of the game in way that would appeal for an rpg.

@zim : I agree with you that the distinction between OOC and IC rules is not clear...

However, I don't think I broke any OOC rule in doing what I did... Oath-swearing, taxes, ownership of settlements have always been IC issues and thus were always enforced ingame (see Methodios secession in LotR for example)

Let me state also that I understand why Phonics feels cheated, I would have certainly felt the same had we traded places... But feeling cheated and being cheated is quite different...

In LotR didn't we create special rules to allow rebels more autonomy? In direct contrast to Methodios, Zirn is in every way a regular elector in the game and the only difference between him and the others is that he can't post in the Diet. Nowhere is it stated that that makees him immune to rules he disagrees with. In the bulk of games thus far the rules have been determined OOC. This has extended to settlements and money, which are especially important in any of the newer games where avatars can declare war and kill eachother. When avatars had more freedom it was a result of rules changes or exceptions (like the Cataclysm) in the rules. This game apparently has more exceptions than any past ones but noone is quite sure what they are.

Note that the rules specifying that the Marshall receives half of sacking money are in the same exact section as the rules on barring those who don't take the oath from the Diet, the rule that gives new provinces to the Kaiser, and the rules that limit who can move agents. Which of these are inviolable? Does one just cherrypick the ones they like and ignore those they don't? It's obviously not as simple as "Sections 5 and 7 are OOC and inviolable, others are not"

Using the same kind of spurious reasoning for Zirn violating multiple rules the Prinz should have been able to stop you and when Phonics was unclear about whether he could he was not given time respond after a decision was made. Then later that same turn you declare "sorry, but these other rules don't apply to me". Phonics could then easily justify, using the same kind of "IC" logic, his being able to march into Geno before a declaration of war, even though that wasn't his intent (he just noted there was no "warrning period" for declaring war and thought it was ok). The rules can't just apply when they convenience Lothar and not when they don't.

There certainly is a difference between cheating and just making someone feel they've been cheated. It's not at all clear whether one has been done or both.

Well, first of all I would like to express my interest in joining this game, or rather, formally apply ;)

Second, I know it has been asked a few posts further up, but to go into more detail: What exactly can I do and what can't I do before I get an ingame avatar?

And, to add to the general confusion, I think the dispute that is going on here (having read the diet and most of this thread, leading up to the current problems), has to be settled OOC in a way that states, in what way characters can violate rules, because their character does actually violate a rule and when that is just not possible, because the rule is not just an IC rule but an OOC rule that ensures enjoyment of the game for all players ;)

As I understand it you can debate and vote in the Diet, interact with other players in the Tournament thread and things like that. Basically all things that doesn't necessarily require an avatar (such as lead armies, fight battles or own property).

I see, well, I don't want to seem stupid, but if I make up a character, who is an elector (which he would need to be, in order to vote and speak in the diet), what happens to him when I get an avatar? I mean, I could of course just imagine a subordinate of an "unknown elector" but I guess that would create problems with an oath and other things.

Obviously you can't play with two people who has a vote. I should expect that either you give your imagined guy up completely, or you can come up with a way to retire him from politics and still keep him (perhaps now as your avatar's representative in the Diet when he himself isn't present as others - including myself - have done).

That's what I meant, so I'll give it a little more thought and then either restrict myself to RPing in the IC thread with a non-elector character or create an elector who "retires" when I get an avatar ;)

Excellent. Start as soon as you're ready and remember: the Osterreich are scum and Lothar is a criminal. Brandenburg-Bohemia is where you will find honourable Men to befriend! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Excellent. Start as soon as you're ready and remember: the Osterreich are scum and Lothar is a criminal. Brandenburg-Bohemia is where you will find honourable Men to befriend! :laugh4:

---

Lothar is the criminal...

Nah, that's the Pope. L does come close, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

and remember: the Osterreich are scum [...] Brandenburg-Bohemia is where you will find honourable Men to befriend! :laugh4:

---

Hmm I'll think about it, but this might have been the wrong way to ensure my friendship since I am actually from Austria :oops:

EDIT: Also, since I have the german version of the game installed will that make problems with the mods I need to install?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

the Osterreich are scum

---

Why don't you tell us what you really think? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLastDays

Hmm I'll think about it, but this might have been the wrong way to ensure my friendship since I am actually from Austria

---

Well, okay, let me refine my comment: the Osterreich's political leaders are scum. Does that make it better? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

Why don't you tell us what you really think? :laugh4:

---

I fart in your general direction.

It's not true to say that it was impossible to stop Zirn from taking Milan. I hope I had made this clear earlier to both parties, but if one had been at war with the other than it would have been decided via PVP Battle.

There seems to be three issues of contention:

1. Lothar taking control of settlements that haven't been granted to him.

2. Lothar refusing to pay money to other electors that is legally required of him.

3. Tristan being able to take Milan largely because he was able to get the save first.

Nothing about this is the fault of any of the players. I take resonsibility for any discontent for not acting early and decisively enough to avoid this, as none of these issues crept up out of nowhere.


1. Lothar did have control over Genoa, a regretable oversight on my part. However, it's now part of the Kaiser's desmense as per the rules (It was listed as his in the last turn's report) and he must take it by force if it is to be returned to him. Although it shouldn't have been necessary, personally I do like the idea that the Kaiser must manually assert his right to newly conquered provinces. This is the best solution I have seen to the conflicting interets of having a stable, understable system for allocating provinces while allowing for a rebel to appear and succeed if the system lacks defenders. Still, that was obviously not the orginal intent of the language. I think that in order to make it easier to understand how provinces are assigned it would be best to eliminate the part in rule 6.11 where new provinces are automatically given to the Kaiser and reconcile it into rule 3.4, which was supposed to be the sole rule dealing with new provinces. Right now they're both equal law despite their contridictions.

2. Lothar refusing to hand over money means breaking a rule of the Diet, not a rule of the game. The money must first come into his posession before he can hand it over to the Reichmarshall fund. Although the law can make it mandatory for one Elector to give money to another, all electors have the option to simply not give up money that's in their posession to another Elector. If an Elector does this, and will not listen to reason, he must listen to force. This aspect of money is different from provinces and soldiers/agents/ships work because simply because money itself is different to those things. It also doesn't mean an Elector can avoid paying for recruitment and construction. Simply put, payment from one elector to another can be automatic, but never mandatory. This should be clearly stated in the rules, and currently it isn't, which is my fault.

3. Leopold couldn't stop Lothar because of a failure to provide a rule that eliminates the unfairness of who takes the save first, which is clearly an OOC issue. I was hesitant to do anthing about this because it would have made making up a new rule on the spot to resolve it, but in restrospect it might have been better to require a PVP fight. In anycase, the rules are definitely unfair in this regard and need to be fixed. Perhaps whoever is of the highest rank should get the right of first refusal, i.e. counts must respect Dukes unless they are willing to declare war.

I can appreciate the frustation over this, there are concepts I had in mind when creating V&V that clearly are not adequately expressed in the rules.

Now, regarding our imminent PVP battle. Frankly I did not anticipate a battle ever breaking out when both sides are in the city. I'm going to implement this via an event, as we currently still have the rules that require giving all participants their own, separate turns which takes way too long. Also, whether or not you declare war in the post you take the save or return the save is immaterial, there's not supposed to be a warm-up period anyway. The way phonicsmonkey did it is against the letter of the law but with the spirit, so that particular law should be changed as well in order to avoid tripping up future players.

Finally, welcome aboard to mini and TheLastDays! To answer your question regarding made-up characters, you can do anything you want with them once you get avatars, but you will have only one vote and it will be in your avatar's name, not your previous character

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

I fart in your general direction.

---

Charming! I suppose it's too late to ask for Harold Merode back?

Yes it is. Harold likes the climate of Prussia better.

That's right. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

It's not true to say that it was impossible to stop Zirn from taking Milan. I hope I had made this clear earlier to both parties, but if one had been at war with the other than it would have been decided via PVP Battle.

There seems to be three issues of contention:

1. Lothar taking control of settlements that haven't been granted to him.

2. Lothar refusing to pay money to other electors that is legally required of him.

3. Tristan being able to take Milan largely because he was able to get the save first.

Nothing about this is the fault of any of the players. I take resonsibility for any discontent for not acting early and decisively enough to avoid this, as none of these issues crept up out of nowhere.

---

Hey no worries Cecil, we can work it all out now.

Actually on point 3 I would say rather that my issue is that he was able to take Milan without having to go through me, despite the fact that IC I made it clear to him that I would stand in his way. On top of that he was able to waltz right back out again wtih 9k florins in loot which the Prinz had his eye on (the purpose for besieging Milan in the first place! I believe I should have been able to force him to show his hand by declaring war on me before he entered the city. The onus should have been on him to fight his way in.

However I'm happy to let this slide now if I get a chance to fight him for that cash now (as per my below comment).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

1. Lothar did have control over Genoa, a regretable oversight on my part. However, it's now part of the Kaiser's desmense as per the rules (It was listed as his in the last turn's report) and he must take it by force if it is to be returned to him. Although it shouldn't have been necessary, personally I do like the idea that the Kaiser must manually assert his right to newly conquered provinces. This is the best solution I have seen to the conflicting interets of having a stable, understable system for allocating provinces while allowing for a rebel to appear and succeed if the system lacks defenders. Still, that was obviously not the orginal intent of the language. I think that in order to make it easier to understand how provinces are assigned it would be best to eliminate the part in rule 6.11 where new provinces are automatically given to the Kaiser and reconcile it into rule 3.4, which was supposed to be the sole rule dealing with new provinces. Right now they're both equal law despite their contridictions.

---

6.11 came out of the Kaiser's re-assertion of control after the civil war. IC he was able to assert more power and control over the process of distributing settlements because he had all-but vanquished his enemies. So I think 3.4 should give way to 6.11 and the Kaiser should have automatic right of decision over all new settlements, until such a time as we might pass a Diet vote to amend the rule. Not sure if that's what you meant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

2. Lothar refusing to hand over money means breaking a rule of the Diet, not a rule of the game. The money must first come into his posession before he can hand it over to the Reichmarshall fund. Although the law can make it mandatory for one Elector to give money to another, all electors have the option to simply not give up money that's in their posession to another Elector. If an Elector does this, and will not listen to reason, he must listen to force. This aspect of money is different from provinces and soldiers/agents/ships work because simply because money itself is different to those things. It also doesn't mean an Elector can avoid paying for recruitment and construction. Simply put, payment from one elector to another can be automatic, but never mandatory. This should be clearly stated in the rules, and currently it isn't, which is my fault.

---

I'm happy for the rules to be clarified in this way and it makes sense IC that a rebel can decide not to hand over income. However, I think that if a rebel decides to hold on to a settlement in defiance of the Kaiser or refuse to pay income he should be automatically viewed as having declared war on the Reich unless there are IC negotiations to the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

3. Leopold couldn't stop Lothar because of a failure to provide a rule that eliminates the unfairness of who takes the save first, which is clearly an OOC issue. I was hesitant to do anthing about this because it would have made making up a new rule on the spot to resolve it, but in restrospect it might have been better to require a PVP fight. In anycase, the rules are definitely unfair in this regard and need to be fixed. Perhaps whoever is of the highest rank should get the right of first refusal, i.e. counts must respect Dukes unless they are willing to declare war.

---

It's an interesting philosophical question about temporal precedence. Do all the actions that take place during one turn happen simultaneously, or in the order that the players take the save? If the latter there is unfairness as to who grabs it first. If the former we need some kind of decision-making process to handle such things as competition for precedence at sieges etc.

I like your idea of first refusal according to rank - but what if two Dukes are in a stand-off with each other? Does it become influence-based? And then if equal perhaps the influence of their combined House members? Or maybe the Kaiser is a tie-breaker?

And I think that if IC a rebel decides to ignore the rule then that should place him in an automatic state of war with the Reich and the other player should have the option of giving battle before the rebel enters the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

Now, regarding our imminent PVP battle. Frankly I did not anticipate a battle ever breaking out when both sides are in the city.

---

According to your first point above Lothar should not have had control of Genoa anyway, so maybe the best thing is to say that the Prinz' army caught him outside the city and gave battle, before he entered?

A separate question is where is Lothar's treasury if not in Genoa? And if I kill him do I get access to that cash?

Because if not I'm going to have to go back to my complaint about not being able to stop him getting in (and out of!) Milan to seize all that loot in the first place. It's the money I'm really worried about.

That all seems fair.

2. I find a bit confusing. I can get the idea that a Diet rule rather than game rule is being broken, but it's not always easy to tell the difference. The rule on handing money over is in the same section as rules on things like being barred from the Diet and who can move agents. People could come up with IC reasons for breaking any of these rules. For instance someone could say "I may be officially barred from the Diet, but I'm speaking there anyway and someone will have to try and stop me". But it's an rp thread and players could easily post at each other "The guards kick you out", "a flood of my supporters come in and beat up the guards" and so forth. Even easier in the latter case I could merge an army with a diplomat and say I intimidate or bribe him, causing him to make an unauthorized deal with a rival nation.

I doubt these would be allowed but there's quite a bit of grey area between what's a game and what's a Diet rule. Ask every player and a couple of the new guys that posted recently which is which and they'd all probably disagree on at least a couple of them.

I do like the idea of failing to follow certain Diet rules resulting in an automatic declaration of war...

3. I only really had two issues with this. The first is that Zirn was able to take advantage of regular elector status to be able to just take the save first but then ignoring multiple other rules claiming "special" status as a rebel. It seems like it should be one or the other. With the ruling on Genoa this has been negated. I'm perfectly fine with any of the alternate methods of deciding who assaults first or just using the old "whoever gets the save first" way these games have been done.

The other thing was that there was a rule dispute, you stated that if Phonics wanted to stop him he'd have to declare war, then it seemed as if Phonics didn't get a chance to do so. I would have liked to see him get more time to respond since it's quite likely he only didn't declare war sooner because he didn't know that's the only way he could stop someone entering the city. With the upcoming pvp battle this is less of an issue as well, but I wanted to make my concerns clear in case of future instances...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

It's not true to say that it was impossible to stop Zirn from taking Milan. I hope I had made this clear earlier to both parties, but if one had been at war with the other than it would have been decided via PVP Battle.

There seems to be three issues of contention:

1. Lothar taking control of settlements that haven't been granted to him.

2. Lothar refusing to pay money to other electors that is legally required of him.

3. Tristan being able to take Milan largely because he was able to get the save first.

Nothing about this is the fault of any of the players. I take resonsibility for any discontent for not acting early and decisively enough to avoid this, as none of these issues crept up out of nowhere.


1. Lothar did have control over Genoa, a regretable oversight on my part. However, it's now part of the Kaiser's desmense as per the rules (It was listed as his in the last turn's report) and he must take it by force if it is to be returned to him. Although it shouldn't have been necessary, personally I do like the idea that the Kaiser must manually assert his right to newly conquered provinces. This is the best solution I have seen to the conflicting interets of having a stable, understable system for allocating provinces while allowing for a rebel to appear and succeed if the system lacks defenders. Still, that was obviously not the orginal intent of the language. I think that in order to make it easier to understand how provinces are assigned it would be best to eliminate the part in rule 6.11 where new provinces are automatically given to the Kaiser and reconcile it into rule 3.4, which was supposed to be the sole rule dealing with new provinces. Right now they're both equal law despite their contridictions.

2. Lothar refusing to hand over money means breaking a rule of the Diet, not a rule of the game. The money must first come into his posession before he can hand it over to the Reichmarshall fund. Although the law can make it mandatory for one Elector to give money to another, all electors have the option to simply not give up money that's in their posession to another Elector. If an Elector does this, and will not listen to reason, he must listen to force. This aspect of money is different from provinces and soldiers/agents/ships work because simply because money itself is different to those things. It also doesn't mean an Elector can avoid paying for recruitment and construction. Simply put, payment from one elector to another can be automatic, but never mandatory. This should be clearly stated in the rules, and currently it isn't, which is my fault.

3. Leopold couldn't stop Lothar because of a failure to provide a rule that eliminates the unfairness of who takes the save first, which is clearly an OOC issue. I was hesitant to do anthing about this because it would have made making up a new rule on the spot to resolve it, but in restrospect it might have been better to require a PVP fight. In anycase, the rules are definitely unfair in this regard and need to be fixed. Perhaps whoever is of the highest rank should get the right of first refusal, i.e. counts must respect Dukes unless they are willing to declare war.

I can appreciate the frustation over this, there are concepts I had in mind when creating V&V that clearly are not adequately expressed in the rules.

Now, regarding our imminent PVP battle. Frankly I did not anticipate a battle ever breaking out when both sides are in the city. I'm going to implement this via an event, as we currently still have the rules that require giving all participants their own, separate turns which takes way too long. Also, whether or not you declare war in the post you take the save or return the save is immaterial, there's not supposed to be a warm-up period anyway. The way phonicsmonkey did it is against the letter of the law but with the spirit, so that particular law should be changed as well in order to avoid tripping up future players.

Finally, welcome aboard to mini and TheLastDays! To answer your question regarding made-up characters, you can do anything you want with them once you get avatars, but you will have only one vote and it will be in your avatar's name, not your previous character

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Well, okay, let me refine my comment: the Osterreich's political leaders are scum. Does that make it better? ~;)

---

A little bit ;) - that certainly works on modern day political leaders as well...

Well interesting times here...

I agree about the refusal of money... that's like the tax that a vassal pays. The rules clearly state that it might be IC-mandatory, but it doesn't just happen, the vassal has to take a deliberate action to hand over these taxes, so I'm guessing it would be the same for the moeny an elector gets from sacking a city.

On proposal #3. I'd say that it makes more sense that the right of first refusal concerning a siege should lie with the avatar who first laid the siege as it makes the most sense IC... His army is camped around the town so if anyone else wants to enter (or leave) - be it army or just a regiment of cavalry - he has to go through him. So... I agree it could be an IC thing that higher ranks have the right to take a city first, even if it is already besieged, by a count for example, but the Duke would then have to "enforce" his right IC, or just demand entrance to the city. The besieging player would then have to either give way to the demands or declare war, stating that, should the duke try to attack the city he'd have to go through him first... - I know that might slow down progress a bit, because these IC "negotiations" would have to be done before either of them could take the save but it would, imho, make the most sense IC and probably give way to some interesting situations... Also a little more IC discussions and tensions never hurt a game like this ;)

EDIT: Oh, about my question from above: Any experience with LTC on other-than-english installs of the game?

Don't mind him TheLastDays. He's just jealous that the Austrians have been so prolific. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Well, okay, let me refine my comment: the Osterreich's political leaders are scum. Does that make it better? ~;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Don't mind him TheLastDays. He's just jealous that the Austrians have been so prolific. :clown:

---

All your base are belong to us, Zerg!

TheLastDays, don't listen to him. The real political situation in the Reich is thus. We have our mighty and illustrious Emperor, about whom rumors of madness are highly exagerated. The criminal Zirn and his band of Frenchmen. The noble House of Austria, home of the Prinz (its head), as well as the current Marshall and Spymaster.

Of, and there's some place called Brandenburg-Bohemia, which I believe is run by some sort of traveling jester or fool. ~;p

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

Excellent. Start as soon as you're ready and remember: the Osterreich are scum and Lothar is a criminal. Brandenburg-Bohemia is where you will find honourable Men to befriend! :laugh4:

---

Or you might choose to join Provence to attach yourself to a charming and devilish rogue for a life of piracy, adventure and fun...

They say that madness is inheritable, and the Osterreich is run by the Krazy Kaiser's son. It's only a matter of time before he cracks too... if he hasn't cracked already.

It is true though that living with a "charming and devilish rogue" can seem very appealing. After all, who wouldn't want to be Han Solo's Chewbacca? I for one wouldn't. Imagine that both of them stepped into a bar. How many chicks do you think would choose to go for Chewbacca? Think about it.

And so you see, by process of elimination, there is only one option: Brandenburg-Bohemia. Become a part of the legendary Prussian military machine.