I agree. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Printable View
I agree. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
On another matter, wouldn't it be funny if Bologna was attacked by the Pope himself?
ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
Of course, we'd get smashed. Florence and Bologna are cities, and cut off from Bern, Staufen, and Innsbruck. It would be fun though.
It would be the next best thing to a bunch of Gauls getting transported forward in time.
It might not be the best idea in the world, but wouldn't GH be within his rights to declare war on the Papal States since they're trespassing? Otto isn't crazy enough to propose that in the Diet though. :beam:
It might serve as a useful distraction to the family feud in the Diet, Christmas will be awkward at the Imperial homestead this year.
Edit:
Agh, looking in the Library, my kill ratio is 1.78 to 1, while Henry's is like 6.5 to 1. Bern was a bloodbath, I wish things had gone a bit better.
Also, there's a 23 year gap between Elsebeth and Otto, so when she's 16, Otto will be 39. I know this is medieval times, but still there's an ick factor. Otto would be like the HRE's version of Michael Douglas :dizzy2: .
2nd Edit: The final version of my battle report is up. Sorry for the prolonged roll out but I split writing it between work and home.
I have the impression we (HRE) could implode nicely if we don't all watch our selves at this point of the game :beam:
Still, it is exciting.
dlain, you did an excellent job. I would not have handled that seige any where near as well you. Further more I would have predicted that my behind would have been handed to me on a platter if I was in command.
Yeah, GH could have declared war on the Pope if he had wanted, but that is no longer the case. At the time I fought the battle of Stettin (1114AD) the Pope had moved his army next to Genoa. I suspect he's running off to some random rebel province in France or Iberia. We'll probably see him coming back if it gets taken before he gets there.
Also, FLYdude's avatar has developed more loyalty problems. That should be fun to roleplay.
Looks like we've got some Milanese backpackers in the Bern area though. Moving to Dijon, too late to the party at Bern, or potentially hostile?
I wish we did have the "Get off my proper-tay" diplomatic option.
Golly I could do with some intel!!?? :wall:
Ignoramus has promised me some, but if anyone else can help I'd love some maps.
Cheers
AG
Hey all,
I am afraid I have to resign from this PBM guys. I am very busy with my thesis these days and will continue to be for the next 6-7 weeks, and I just have not time to read the long literary debates, and reports of the players. Therefore it is hard to keep track of events, and you have probably noticed that I haven't been participating much either.
So I thought I'd let someone else take my place, and follow the developments from the sidelines.
Cheers
Sorry to hear that, Swordsmaster. As you know, you can play in a rather low intensity way. But if you are unable to follow things, I can understand that it's probably not worth it. Good luck with the thesis. :2thumbsup:
Judging from the recent emperor's report...there's some issues.
Dietrich shouldn't be where he is, nor what the emperor is saying he's doing. He's adamantly refused to carry out that order and should be on his way back to Hamburg, not still marching around building watch towers. And thanks to the loyalty issues with the Franconian avatars, it seems the plotline is developing nicely in line with actual game. The Kaiser's actions seem to have made enemies with the Franconian house as a whole.
But my concern is more-so with keeping the gameplay congruent with the diet discussions. Dietrich shouldn't build anything else at all, rather, he should be going back to Hamburg.
Well, the motion does have to be filled, and it's too late to unbuild them and send Dietrich back.
Perhaps we could compromise and say he was forced to by three burly guards named Walter?
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with sending Dietrich out to build the watchtowers. It had to be done and only Generals can do it. If we start saying no avatar can move without the owner's permission, this game is going to start having serious problems. For instance, I was never asked for permission to move Max through Poland to attack Stettin. Should I have been able to refuse? From a role-playing perspective, perhaps, but the game simply isn't designed to accomodate all of our wishes in this manner. Someone had to lead the attack, Dietrich was 'grounded,' and no one else was much closer.
In terms of role-playing, Dietrich probably wouldn't be doing it himself anyway. So, just ignore the technical fact that the avatar moved around the map and pretend that he didn't do it. Perhaps some Franconian laborers were assigned the job. Or maybe come up with an interesting way to explain it away in-character. I did that by making the Polish relations hit part of my story and by being dismissive of Stettin and the Franconians in my battle report.
I agree - we tried letting players control their own avatars' movements in the trial HRE PBM and it's interesting but not what we settled on for this PBM. If there are big disagreements over what an avatar does, the players can try to work something out in PMs and the Chancellor should try to accommodate other players' wishes. But ultimately, the player who is Chancellor moves the generals and the rest of us don't have vetoes. The most freedom I would give the player with the avatar is that they can refuse to fight out a battle (leading to an autoresolve). In this case, the construction of watchtowers seems a relatively minor issue and probably wouldn't be personally supervised by a Duke, even if the game mechanics require it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Ignoramus, would you please clear some space in your message folder, I want to send you a PM.
For everyone else, it's about puppies and sunshine. :beam:
Righto, I'll do it right now.
Oh, and what breed are they? I like Alsatians. :laugh4:
On the other hand gentlemen and nothing against Lucjan role playing BUT...
If a Duke decided to crap on the Emporer in public and then refuse a direct order from him...well, I wouldn't be drawing too much attention to the fact I was not obeying that NEW command...
...just thinking out loud :idea2:
I have been thinking about some of the game mechanics lately and I’d like to propose some changes to Governor and Influence rules. There is another issue regarding the position of Steward, but that can be addressed well enough in-character and so I’ll bring it up at the next Diet session.
I know this explanation is long, but I don’t think the actual proposal very complex. I am verbose by nature, so please excuse the length of my post.
First, I think the ability of the ‘Governor’ to set the build queue for his settlement is a great idea. It seems to be working well and hasn’t caused much of a slowdown in gameplay. I think it adds another nice interactive nature to the game.
However, it’s also totally unpredictable. It only works if the avatar is located in the right city at the time of a Diet session. Since we’ve just been discussing the fact that our avatars can be moved around without our input and independent of role-playing, some players can find themselves arbitrarily losing the Governor ‘trait.’ Thus losing influence in the Diet and losing the fun ability to set the build queue. This seems wrong to me.
If a person is set as the Governor of a settlement, surely they would be able to determine what was being built by proxy, even if they weren’t present. I think this should be a ‘trait’ that is given by appointment and which works whether the avatar is present in the city or not. That way we can have the fun and interactivity of the Governor position without being concerned with the arbitrary in-game movements of our avatars.
However, if it’s an appointed position which lasts until death or re-assignment, it’s not much different from the Count. So… let just give the Governor’s ‘powers’ to the Count who owns the province. This makes more sense than the current system, where someone can end up being a Governor of a town owned by a Count that isn't even from their same House.
Second, there is also an issue with the “military influence” bonus. Anyone gets a +1 or +2 based on having been an Army commander on just one occasion. While I understand the reasoning behind this, what if that one occasion is a dramatic loss? The avatar still gets a +1 even though in reality his influence would have diminished. Furthermore, the size of the army thing seems rather arbitrary. It’s an attempt to mimic the Legion/Field Army/Consular Army aspect of WOTS but it just doesn’t seem to work as well in KOTR. I would like to get rid of this military influence altogether and replace it with something different.
One nice aspect about WOTS was that influence was greatly affected by the actual traits of the avatar. While this was unfair to people who got craptastic avatars, it is also more in-line with role-playing. I would like to propose that we use character stats as the substitution for military influence. That way characters with fabulous traits who have accomplished much will get the influence they deserve, but characters with poor traits can still wield significant power if they are appointed to the right positions.
Since there’s no single stat that correlates well with influence (except for the Kaiser’s authority), I think we should use a system that reflects all stats. They should all have SOME impact on a person’s influence. A really loyal person will be respected in a manner different from a really capable general, but they both will sway people in their own ways. Similarly, a person with good stats all around should have some sway even if they don’t excel in any one area.
I like the current cap at 5 bonus influence that we have right now, split between 3 civil and 2 military. Since my suggestions essentially involve eliminating the Governor influence and the Military Influence, the whole thing has to be redesigned. Here’s my proposal for the influence bonuses:
Appointed Influence (Max 3 points):
Duke: +2
Count: +1
Chancellor, ex-Chancellor, or Prince: +1
Stat Influence (Max 2 points):
15 or more total stat points: +1 (I thought about a lower number, but all avatars are given a base 3 piety and base 5 loyalty, which means those points are freebies. So, 15 is only 7 from actual traits, plus the 8 piety and loyalty freebies)
6 or more ranks in one stat: +1 (In the unlikely scenario where a character gets 6 or more in 2 stats without having 15 total, they get this +1 twice)
So, for Appointed Influence there’s a direct increase as you go up the chain. A normal Elector with no appointment gets no bonus. When you become a Count you get +1 (in addition to the ability to control a settlement build queue). A Duke or a Count who has served as Chancellor gets +2. A Duke who has served as Chancellor or a Prince (who I can’t imagine ever NOT being a Duke) gets +3. Play your cards right and anyone can get the max bonus on this by being appointed Duke and being elected Chancellor. It won’t be easy, but it can all happen through role-playing rather than some arbitrary system.
For the Stat Influence, 15 should be pretty easy for most people to meet after their avatars have been around for a short while. This allows for a general bonus for everyone, excluding only those who have really bad stats and would be legitimately viewed negatively and those who have just spawned (n00b penalty!). 6 or more in one stat isn’t easy to get, but it isn’t too hard either, considering a simple +1 in loyalty will give it to you. Even under the worst circumstances, you can achieve this if you get yourself elected Chancellor and fight lots of battles yourself (as we did in WOTS). That way you should be able to easily achieve 6 ranks in Command at least.
Interesting ideas, TinCow. :bow: I'm happy to go along with them.
What I was trying to do with the governor idea was (a) give a reward for going to the trouble of setting a build queue; (b) give an incentive for generals to spend some time back at home, reducing the problem of too many generals chasing not enough battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
But I agree the way it's working is a little clunky and your proposal is an attractive simplification. Ultimately, we will get to the stage where we have more settlements than generals. In that case, we can let Dukes decide build queues for settlements without Counts, and also assign more than one settlement to a Count. (Both ideas are probably in the rules already.)
No objection to that, either.Quote:
Here’s my proposal for the influence bonuses:
Appointed Influence (Max 3 points):
Duke: +2
Count: +1
Chancellor, ex-Chancellor, or Prince: +1
Stat Influence (Max 2 points):
15 or more total stat points: +1 (I thought about a lower number, but all avatars are given a base 3 piety and base 5 loyalty, which means those points are freebies. So, 15 is only 7 from actual traits, plus the 8 piety and loyalty freebies)
6 or more ranks in one stat: +1 (In the unlikely scenario where a character gets 6 or more in 2 stats without having 15 total, they get this +1 twice)
One issue is where the loss of influence leaves military ranks.
I think the rank of Knight (think tribune) still remains important and characterful - must perform an act of valour to get the chance to lead a battle.
And Field Marshal (think Legate) is still a big prize: you get your own standing army.
The rank of Army Commander becomes a little redundant, but we could keep it just as a title (and to make sure people are clear who fights the battle, if there's more than one general in a stack). Plus fighting battles is probably the biggest reward for players anyway, outside of becoming Chancellor.
I guess we should discuss these proposals here. If there is no objection to them, we can adopt them before the next Diet. If there is dissension, we can have them as an OOC constitutional ammendment.
Hey,
can I still sign up for this one??
Yes, I recommend you read the first post in this thread to see the rules. Then you need to choose one of the four Houses to join. You'll see the list of players in each House here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...81&postcount=1
If you have no strong preference, Bavaria is a man short, so I would recommend you join them.
Tin Cow's idea seems interesting, but what if you had 9 Dread? Surely people would be a bit wary of you?
I had a simpler idea:
Apart from the influence of being a Count, Duke, Army Commander etc., avatars would have their influence calculated in two ways.
Loyalty: The ammount of loyalty an avatar has divided by 3. It stands to reason that if a general is known to be loyal then he would carry more influence than one who is known to be wavering in his support.
Piety: The ammount of piety an avatar has divided by 3. Not the best way to calculate influence, but with the lack of avatar's having "influence" and the inability to use Chivalry(as otherwise charcters having Dread would have minus influence) leaves no other choice. Besides, we are the "Holy" Roman Empire in name at least.
Both chivalry and dread should raise influence - although by different routes. You see something like this with town loyalty. Inspire people or terrorise them - both are ways of influencing them. I don't think TinCow was suggesting treating dread as negative chivalry - just count the points in either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
I like TinCow's idea because it rewards both the well rounded superstar, but also the more specialised character (so you could try to move your character's traits to be chivalrous/dreadful, pious or whatever). Also, it makes all stats count rather than putting one or two above all others.
Yes, I did intend that Dread and Chivalry should both count as points. Essentially, any colored in icon on the stat screen would equal 1 stat point. 5 Dread = 5 stat points, 2 Chivalry = 2 stat points, etc.
I definitely think a person with 9 dread would be influential. They might influence others by threatening to castrate them, but it's still an influence. I wanted to stay away from picking a stat or two to be important because it doesn't allow for flexibility and role-playing. If any stat can be effective in providing influence, then a person could get influence by fighting many battles or simply sitting in their settlement and building lots of church improvements. The former is great for people who are capable of fighting battles, but what of people like AussieGiant who can't? With this situation, he could gain influence by the latter route just as effectively, which I think is of benefit to the game.
It can also impact your decisions in the game as well. Imagine if you're at 6 chivalry and the Chancellor orders you to sack or massacre a town. If you obey, you lose chivalry and will lose an entire Influence point. If you refuse, you keep your influence but incurr the wrath of the Chancellor. Again, good for gameplay.
Those Italian rebels looked nasty. We'll have to be careful, considering that Florence and Bologna are cities.
Believe me, I was *very* surprised when I saw what we were up against.
But it's encouraging to know that the Feudal Knights died pretty easily, even from crossbow fire. The time when they were toughest to kill was when they were routing and my escort wouldn't finish them off properly. :wall:
Mercenary Crossbowmen are good against almost anything; we'll have to be careful not to wrought the AI with them. However, it was nice that the AI didn't just stand there and get shot at.
On another note, I've just discovered that "der Stolze" in German means "the proud". So in English I'm Sigismund the Proud. I'm a bit annoyed at that, as my character's been quite humble.
It could be a sarcastic title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus