Knights of the Round Table - Romano-British PBM (Goth mod - WoS style)

Galagros - what age were your two new generals when they were adopted?

On the black tgas, I think it is a bug with your graphics card. And, and many others, have the same problem. I think if you change a setting (anti-aliasing off? or something), you can fix it - you could search or ask the apothecary for information. I've never fixed it - instead, I just use the free program fraps available off the internet to take screenshots (install it, start it up before your game, press F10 and it stores the tga in the folder of your choice).

Zimfan - based on your trials, what's your judgement about difficulty levels? From what you write, the VH one sounds more intense. I like the idea of having to fend off stacks of Celts and Saxons, while trying to shore up the Roman Empire from barbarian hordes. But I'll go along with whatever you decide.

I have been using infranview for years now, so that's not my problem, but I do still have my anti-aliasing on from when i played MTW a few days ago ... I'll try fraps, too. Thanks.

I'm not positive about their ages. I think the first one might have been 31, but all I can remember about the other is that he was really young. I started a VH campaign again and attacked the Celts on turn 3, it's making the game a lot harder. The first battle was in some woods and I killed about 550, only losing about 60. Then I besieged and assaulted the last 150-200 in their city, again with small losses. After that things got worse... I'm besieged in the same city this by the Celts, but am about to sally because they won't assault. And at the same time the Saxons landed. I didn't have a spy nearby so I had no idea what type of troops they had, but I could see that it was only 300 or so. I attacked it with thr troops I had lying around (3 of the militia spearmen and 3 archers). Boy was that a mistake! The enemy was almost all Dugath heavy swordsmen and I really got beaten badly, but that Saxon army still won't do anything but sit beside my port and wait for me to attack them. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Zimfan - based on your trials, what's your judgement about difficulty levels? From what you write, the VH one sounds more intense. I like the idea of having to fend off stacks of Celts and Saxons, while trying to shore up the Roman Empire from barbarian hordes. But I'll go along with whatever you decide.

---

I wouldn't mind a very hard campaign. Troop management will be key, though. And the Romans will betray us, if we ever have a city bordering their's.

I don't feel strongly on the issue of the campaign difficulty. Shall we have a quick poll on difficulty levels from prospective players?

Econ21: VH/M (campaign/battle)
Zimfan:?
Wonderland:?
UltraWar:?
Galagros:?

We can pick the most popular from the votes within the next 48 hours.

I'll go along with VH/M, but would also settle for H/M. I'm afriad I wouldn't be able to handle some battles on a higher difficulty than medium, though.

I second Galagros. I'll go with VH/M, but would not be opposed to H/M.

I would be keen for an elder role (if that is as I assume a non-ruling, non fighting role) as I have little experiance in fighting battles particularly in BI or any mods. And if I am really bad you lot can just assassinate the old man in his sleep (-err... ion the game that it!!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

I would be keen for an elder role (if that is as I assume a non-ruling, non fighting role) as I have little experiance in fighting battles particularly in BI or any mods. And if I am really bad you lot can just assassinate the old man in his sleep (-err... ion the game that it!!!)

---

I'd personally like to have people play who aren't so used to the game that they breeze through every battle. It adds spice to the campaign, story, roleplay, everything. A bad general here, a few losses there, sounds like fun! :skull:

Hope you change your mind and decide to play as an active warrior :2thumbsup:.

I will download all the mods now and see if my comp "can handle the truth" and then have a few battles.

With my kind of luck I would end up on the end of the first arrow tossed our way... But hey if there enough players I am in (pending computer working).

I've got a few questions about the rules of this PBEM, just to clarify some things.

1) Someone mentioned no retraining. Now is this no retraining of full units to get upgrades or no retraining at all?

2) We have to occupy all conquered settlements, correct?

3) Do we have to let the AI control building and recruiting in settlements without a faction heir in them?

4) I think it's been established that we can take Del Raida (sp?) from the Celts, but must leave Tora alone. Are we not to sink Celtic ships also?

I've been playing a VH/M Saxon campaign and it's not been easy. The Lombardi and Slavs hordes both picked my land to settle in. I was left with the starting territory and the two Romano-British cities. Soon enough the Celts decided to come south with almost 2 full armies, though, and since they had so much time to build up they were quite hard to defeat. Most of their troops were higher in the tech tree and ALL had good experience, weaponry, and armor. I just thought you guys would like to know that since it could happen in this campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galagros

1) Someone mentioned no retraining. Now is this no retraining of full units to get upgrades or no retraining at all?

---

This is just retraining of full units to get upgrades. Ships can be retrained without restrictions though.

Quote:

---

2) We have to occupy all conquered settlements, correct?

---

Yes. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

3) Do we have to let the AI control building and recruiting in settlements without a faction heir in them?

---

No we can control all settlements. NB: I'm thinking that as we may want low taxes to get the population up, we may want to keep characters out of towns so they don't get ruined by bad vices.

Quote:

---

4) I think it's been established that we can take Del Raida (sp?) from the Celts, but must leave Tora alone. Are we not to sink Celtic ships also?

---

Ships are free game. Also we could land and fight in Ireland - e.g. for a quest - but just not take the settlement.

Okay, thanks for clearing those questions up. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Victory conditions: (1) Control all of Britain and Ireland; Rome; + ???
(2) All controlled provinces to be Christian.

---

Ireland is out now, but I thought about something else that I had no idea about. How are we going to get the settlements to be Christians? I know traits can change religion over time, but the temples would go against us and won't be able to be built, so how are we going to go about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galagros

Okay, thanks for clearing those questions up. :2thumbsup:



Ireland is out now, but I thought about something else that I had no idea about. How are we going to get the settlements to be Christians? I know traits can change religion over time, but the temples would go against us and won't be able to be built, so how are we going to go about it?

---

Raze the temple to the ground, build a church, and hope the population converts before it rebels. Things can be sped along by including a couple family members in the stack occupying the city(some agents also add +5% to conversion).

Econ21 Can we maybe train one unit per city per turn? That way, no insta retraining whole armies is out. Alternatively, assuming the unit is near full(say, 75%), can we retrain for weapons upgrades? I'd hate to not be able to upgrade that British Legionaire unit to silver attack because it lost 5 men in a fight against rebel peasants(well, no peasants in the mod, but insert appropriate lowest level infantry unit).

Can the Romano-British build churchs? I've never seen that option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galagros

Can the Romano-British build churchs? I've never seen that option.

---

Just about everyone can build churches except the Saxons(at least in vanilla BI) and perhaps the Huns and Sasanids(never played them). However, each city can have only one temple/church.
To build a church you have to knock down any existing temples and vice versa.

I would like to request eldification please lord simon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Absolutely - this is a period of brainstorming. There is a side of me that just wants to tell you to start playing. But spending a little more time discussing ideas and being open to the ideas of newcomers, should improve the campaign. TinCow and others provided a lot of input into setting up the Will of the Senate rules - it is a shame he is off on a work trip.

---

Ok, I have got an idea if you would like one. I have seen quests mentioned in an offhand manner in this thread, but it appears that these are nothing more than an informal term for WOTS style legislation. Yet, this campaign is trying to be something of a mythical Arthurian crusader style game. Why not try including actual holy quests?

The great thing about the quests of myth and legend is that they were never something that people simply decided to do... they were always mandated by heaven and usually irrelevant to the running of daily affairs and often times actively inconvenient for those who embarked upon them. These aspects of true questing will not often crop up from legislative style decision making.

So... quests should not be assigned by the voting body, they should be assigned by an independant and otherwise neutral person. This person can take the title Archbishop or some similar priestly name to help roleplay the quests as messages from God. The quests should vary in difficulty and objective and be oriented towards Christian goals that are totally unrelated to the strategic and economic status of the empire. The Archbishop will have no other role or power in the game and will not speak except during discussions about the quests (to keep the position truly neutral from all political dealings and such). To keep this simple, I suggest that one quest be assigned at the beginning of the reign of each King. If the King accomplishes the quest during his reign, then the reward is bestowed upon him. If the King does not succeed, then the quest is over and a new one is assigned for the next King. The King can accomplish the quest however he wants (i.e. personally or by assigning a knight to do it).

Examples of quests:

Story: A piece of the true cross has been lost by a group of monks who were attacked and killed while crossing the Danube.
Quest: To recover the relic, a group of christian priests must arrive on the easternmost bridge over the river Danube and then return to a friendly province.
Reward: Piece of the True Cross relic is given to the king via console.

Story: The pagans captured a group of Christians in Corduba and massacred them at the temple of Mars as an offering to their false god.
Quest: Destroy the temple of Mars in Corduba.
Reward: Treasury increased by 30,000 gold via console to reflect plundered wealth of the false god.

Story: The Christian city of Reallyfarfromhere has been conquered by Pagan hordes.
Quest: Capture the city of Reallyfarfromhere and build a Cathedral in it.
Reward: King is given trait X and 5 units of Paladins via console (is it possible to spawn units with the console?).

If you would like, I would be happy to play the role of Archbishop, or whatever name the position is given.

Brilliant! By the way, I think taking out the Saxon pagans might be nice. Also, is there any kind of Anglo-Gallic rivalry at this stage that can be made into an objective?

At the relevant times, places like Nicea where some kind of historical event concerned with Christianity happened should be taken. When we're strong enough, Jerusalem is also a prime target. Are Egypt and Constantinople also important to Christians?

Very interesting ideas, TinCow. :bow: I think quests will be central to whether this is a distinctive PBM. Getting a neutral, creative person to dream them up is one way to go, but the downside is that we lose that person as an active player. Are you too busy with your work to want to take on a general? If you would like a general, we could find a substitute for a single Archbishop[1] - for example, the Council of Elders (and full members of the Round Table) could focus on dreaming up quests rather than directing state policy (which could be left to the king). I suspect the Archbishop model may work better, although he could always take ideas from elders and players.

I was thinking of tying quests to knights rather than to the King. The idea would be to give players other than the reigning king more to do. We could still have that only one quest was to be assigned at any one time (in order of seniority). But it might mesh well with your ideas, because if the quests are wholly religious and unconnected with the economic/strategic situation, the King can worry about the overall situation while the knight fixates on their idiosyncratic quest. I'm inclined to say the knight can move his stack around on the strategic map and not just fight the battles. Quests could even be custom designed for individual knights - based on their vices and virtues. The reward for the quest might best be virtues or an ancillary, if we can spawn them, rather than a unit or cash. The main reward would be full entry to the RoundTable, although I have not quite worked out what that would mean in-game. (Maybe Errants have no voice in debate until fully admitted?)

Tiberius - you are welcome to join the Elders. Yes, Jerusalem is an obvious focal point for Christians. I did wonder about requiring Constantinople to be conquered, but if the ERE are Christian (no idea if they are), it does not seem right. If it falls, it could be an objective though.

Let's discuss this a little longer - it will also give other people a chance to join. I don't think this needs to start off as a big PBM as we start with only 2 generals. I am going to create more starting generals for those who sign up before we begin but late comers may face a long wait before getting avatars.


[1]If we stick with the Archbishop idea, might I suggest he be called Merlin rather than Archbishop? It has more of a ring to it. (It's cheesy, but we're calling this Knights of the Roundtable, so let's go with it).

I was not planning on participating in this campaign due to various time constraints (yes, I admit it... I'm replaying the Baldur's Gate saga again) but I certainly have enough time to write up a short story and create some interesting quests every few weeks. So, you wouldn't be losing a player either way.

There's no need for the 'Holy Quests' to replace the quest system you created for the Round Table either. It seems to me that they could both operate perfectly well together. Regardless, it won't bother me one bit if you don't want to use it. I look forward to reading this campaign as it progresses... I have to admit, I'm a fan of British factions, no matter what game or mod they are in.

Oo, sounds good, can't wait to get this started!

(Oh man, for a minute I thought the PBM was going to be using the Arthurian mod. All these ideas would be awesome for it. Perhaps sometime in the future.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

There's no need for the 'Holy Quests' to replace the quest system you created for the Round Table either. It seems to me that they could both operate perfectly well together.

---

I was thinking of merging the two systems together: the knights will each (sequentially) get a quest. But it will be a Holy Quest from the Archbishop/Merlin. I don't think it's necessary to run the two simultaneously.

Quote:

---

I was not planning on participating in this campaign due to various time constraints (yes, I admit it... I'm replaying the Baldur's Gate saga again) but I certainly have enough time to write up a short story and create some interesting quests every few weeks. So, you wouldn't be losing a player either way.

---

OK, I'll give other people a chance to comment, but I am inclined to take you up on your generous offer. ~:cheers:

BTW: what character are you running through Baldur's Gate and how far have you got? I took a fighter through BG1 and emerged from the Underdark with her in BG2, but then burnt out. I find the central story arc of BG2 about the best role-playing experience there is - I really like the whole Irenicus/rescue Imoen arc; the dreams and cut-scenes etc

Quote:

---

Oh man, for a minute I thought the PBM was going to be using the Arthurian mod.

---

That's a thought. Maybe later when the mod is more done?

Yeap, these ideas sound like fun. How many people do you want to start the PBM with? Would there really be enough resources to allow everyone to be active in the beginning with many people?

We have about five or so people signed up to be active players (not elders) right now. That's a good number for a small faction - I'm not really looking for more (mainly just waiting to hear from DukeofSerbia). I could create three more generals in the descr_strat.txt withouth unbalancing things too much. The missions and battles might come around a little slowly at first when we may have only one field army, but sooner or later all 5 should have a chance to be king. (Based on past experience, one or two may drop out before then but others may take their place).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

BTW: what character are you running through Baldur's Gate and how far have you got? I took a fighter through BG1 and emerged from the Underdark with her in BG2, but then burnt out. I find the central story arc of BG2 about the best role-playing experience there is - I really like the whole Irenicus/rescue Imoen arc; the dreams and cut-scenes etc

---

My wife and I have been playing it multiplayer with one character each (starting at BG1) and we're about to go into the underdark. We're running a ton of mods that weren't around when we last played though (several years ago) so it's almost like a new game. When we're done, I'm actually going to do another runthrough with even more mods, including a few player made NPCs that look fun. Did you know they made a mod to let you play BG1 on the BG2 engine? That's right, BG1 with dual wielding and more than 640x480 resolution!

Could the knights have their own pieces of territory if they conquer it? Obviously the major cities like Rome go to the direct control of the king, but what if a knight conquers some Celtic held Scottish settlement (small one) as part of a quest, can he become some kind of a duke? He'd have to invest a lot of time of course, running his little estate... Perhaps he can even raise his own army!

I have thought about the Holy Quests a bit more and I think there is plenty of room to make it fully interactive for player discussion. How about instead of the Holy Quests simply being created for different Knights, they are made totally generic with no specific recipient. There would simply be a pool of Holy Quests available and the Round Table would have to figure out amongst themselves who will attempt them, if anyone.

If so, I would recommend that there always be several active Holy Quests, but never enough for every last general to have one. There needs to be a bit of competition for them if they are to remain prestigious, so let the Knights prove who is more worthy. Also, it should be easy to make a variety of difficulty levels for the quests with proportional rewards. For instance an easy quest could involve simply destroying a nearby army or marching to a place within the empire, but the reward would be a minor trait or retinue member. An extremely difficult quest could involve a very long trip through hostile terrain under a time limit and could even cause war with a nation that the empire does not want to be at war with. The reward for this in turn could be a major trait, a large quantity of gold, or some other unusual and rare bonus (is it possible to modify the age of a family member? That would make an extremely powerful reward for a Fountain of Youth type quest).

As quests are completed and the number of Knights increases, more Holy Quests will be created to keep the pool of available tasks steady. This would allow for a more continual allocation of quests to Knights and for extensive discussion of the quests in the in-character thread. Perhaps the Knights could vote on who gets what quests or perhaps the King could simply assign them. If we want to create some tension and crisis on a few occassions, there could even be a significant penalty for the entire Empire if the quest is not completed.

Example of Crisis Quest:
Story: Mordred has uncovered an ancient tome which describes a powerful weapon hidden in a far away land. He is attempting to obtain this weapon to use against the Knights.
Quest: Reach the mountain pass near Reallyreallyfarawaycity before X date.
Reward: Major trait bonus + other goodies.
Penalty for Failure: Mordred destroys Londinium (Camelot?) - All destroyable buildings in Londinium are destroyed (with funds gained from destruction deducted from treasury) and all units stationed in Londinium are disbanded.

Would I be able to be an Elder?

Interesting ideas, TinCow. :2thumbsup:

I am starting to have some doubts about letting knights move their own armies. I think it would slow things down too much. The Will of the Senate seems to be moving along pretty slowly right now, whereas the traditional PBMs romp along at a much faster pace. If the WoS had finished, then I can see the value in setting up a suitably grand replacement. But given that the two PBMs will move along simultaneously and this will be the smaller scale one, then I think just letting generals fight their own battles is enough. The other things in the back of my mind are the imminent arrival of M2TW and EB 0.8, which will surely lead to more PBMs being set up.

On the quests, I was intending for this PBM to move away from the politicking style of the WoS, back towards the more cooperative model of traditional PBMs. So, I am not keen on knights scrambling for quests. But I do see the need for player interaction and specifically to give the elders something to do. So, I am wondering about the following:

We keep TinCow's latest ideas about quests - there can be several on the go; they are not initially assigned to specific knights; they can vary in scope and rewards etc. But how about we say that the role of the Council of Elders is to assign the quests to knights? The King will then set up the knight with an army for the job, move him on the strategic map etc with the knight fighting the battles. Other knights will be busy serving the King in furthering the factions mundane economic and strategic goals.

Knights can petition elders with arguments for why they should be given a quest. Elders can also look at knights battlefield performance, stats, traits, experience etc in deciding who to give the quest to.

I would like there to be some sharing out of quests, so I propose that each knight only do one quest initially. This will make them full knights of the Round Table and give them a voice among the Council of Elders in deciding which other knights do what quests. When everyone has done a quest, then we can startover - perhaps the Elders along deciding who does the quest etc.

One other thing - I am inclined to make the rewards for the quest hidden; maybe just major or minor. The punishments might be public. That way, we will minimise self-interest among the knights, but everyone will know the stakes if we fail.

Bump