Out of character thread XVI

And FH. :clown:
If I started going by ZM, would people stop calling me z i r n? ~;p

Dutch_guy, Woohoo! I got it in one try!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I use SM and I think I've used WL before.

Econ, Ig, gib, and mini-econ have yet to have their names butchered. Though they do get shortened.

(If I've left anyone out, I apologize...)

Oh wait! There is EF! :D

*edit*

and Cecil

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

And FH. :clown:

---

:embarassed:

sorry FH...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

If the game ends in 2-3, then we won't set sail as you had insisted a few months back econ? :grin2:

---

I want to continue this game as long as it is fun. I do want to sail to America. However, I think TC is right that we should take a sounding amongst the players in 20-30 turns and see whether we as a group do still find it fun or want to start a new PBM. A lot will depend on the internal politics and how challenging it is. Just before the cataclysm, I think it was starting to become a little quiet internally and externally. Right now, thanks to the cataclysm, neither is true. But who knows what it will be like in 30 turns?

WotS started to lag and virtually everyone recognised it was time to end it, even though we had a lot more to do (we had not come close to meeting EBs conditions for a Romani victory).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I have no problems settling this in a Diet vote. However, if that is to happen I first want a clarification from the Kaiser (econ21) about what the rule is at this moment. That makes a huge difference, as the 'opposition' to whatever he picks will then have to come up with a 2/3 majority.

---

PK is right that we started the game with the idea that the generals not on the family tree could not become Dukes. I think that gave some spice to the game. However, at that time, we did not have the idea of modding in recruitable generals. We thought the only people not on the family tree were the two Stewards.

When we did mod recruitables in we - or at least I - completely forgot about the idea that players not on the family tree could not be Dukes. And if I had thought about it, I would have been inclined to reject it as rather unfair on the Austrians (or newbies, or whoever) and overly restrictive.

I think we can regard the recruitables as more like self-made men - they don't have the blue blood family ties. But if a Duke wants to make them their successor, they can do.

Speaking as as someone who played one of the originial "self made man", I'm all for lifting OOC restrictions on what they can do. However, I'd like it if people kept IC insights on characters origins. Part of the fun playing Otto was wheeling and dealing to climb up the social ladder. He had a chip on his shoulder about his lesser origins, and it was part of what fueled his ambition.

So let's get rid of the OOC restrictions, but feel free to keep class bias as an IC notion.

Also unless recruitable generals are adopted into the Royal Family, they won't have their own kids, so there is still motivation for them to wiggle their way into the high nobility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Also unless recruitable generals are adopted into the Royal Family, they won't have their own kids, so there is still motivation for them to wiggle their way into the high nobility.

---

Also they can't be freehold counts, prince, or Kaiser.

I am also thinking of introducing a CA that demands that RBG's must crawl along the Diet floor and grovel any time they wish to address the body.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Oh, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that TC was right and I will now address him as "lord of charter interpretation" though I may cut it down to "Loci" for short. :bow:

Regarding non family members or RGB's.

Things have moved on from when anything was written or first thought about, regarding RBG's.

I certainly like the idea IC of there being some kind of "class" system as PK has outlined but I would recommend letting the game flow and seeing if that occurs rather than interpreting a rule in any hard or fast fashion. All that is doing is "bending" things in a certain direction to suit an agenda.

If an RBG and the players controlling them are strong enough "in" and "out" of character to gain any position then so be it...let's have the game allow for it rather than making a rule for the sake of this "idea".

We have more than enough rules...I will always argue for letting the game flow and "seeing" what happens rather than micro analysing current "codifcation" and or passing further laws.

As OK states there are clear "in game" mechanics which will prevent them from certain things. But lets keep the restrictions IC rather than OOC in various laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I certainly like the idea IC of there being some kind of "class" system as PK has outlined but I would recommend letting the game flow and seeing if that occurs rather than interpreting a rule in any hard or fast fashion. All that is doing is "bending" things in a certain direction to suit an agenda.

---

I wasn't "bending" anything. It really was how I saw the rules. Unless you claim that "perception" is really an inherent and subconscience "bending". By that interpretation, we all "bend" the rules every time we read the charter.

I'm playing a generic elector for a very long time so my stance on RBG's was certainly not to shape some sort of IC agenda. The class war idea was based on my own interpretation of the rules. To claim I was "bending" is to apply a certain amount of forethought and maliciousness to my actions that I simply do not believe applies. :no:

I will demand your apology and that you here-after refer to me as the "deputy lord of charter interpretation."

:clown:

so I can be a Duke, but if I want to have kiddies, I must find myself a sassy royal wench. Capsice :D

Or just get adopted and get a marriage proposal as the rest of us.

The tricky part about that is that there is now a low general to territory ratio. It might be tough to be adopted.

Most of the "rest of us"(them) were probably born into the family, if for no other reason than that Tincow had difficulty creating recruitable general characters until recently.

Edit: Great story, deguerra! :2thumbsup:

Shouldn't take too long. I imagine within 2 chancellorships, it is entirely possible to reclaim all the lost territories, if no restrictions are set for conquest.

Also, being part of the family doesn't mean you will get married. Most of the current characters (and the recently deceased) were bachelors all their lives and some (like Arnold) still haven't been married. Hans only got married the turn he got himself killed, so that's almost a hundred turns since he's been in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Most of the "rest of us"(them) were probably born into the family, if for no other reason than that Tincow had difficulty creating recruitable general characters until recently.

---

RBG's are actually a relatively new addition to the game. Our territories got pretty static so our avatars were not marrying or having children anymore.

We had new players join (WH and RK), but no avatars to give them in the houses they wanted, so there was an executive decision to let FH mod the game to allow RBG's

The parts of the charter that were in question (section 4.1-4.3) were to deal with the three beginning generals that the HRE starts out with.

Now, because of avatar death and new players we have more RBG's. Because of certain political and demographic circumstances, the question came up of making one Duke.

Some of us saw section 4 of the charter as outlawing such an act. Some did not. Econ ruled that an RBG can become Duke.

Finally AG mortally offended me and will be forced to pay horrible penance in the form of a large ice cream shake. Or beer...

:clown:

And that is the RBG story in 5 minutes or less.

:oops: Very true, Factionheir. For some reason I read deguerra's post asking how to get into the royal family, not how to have children.

On a side note, Tincow had plans to get the next turn up sometime late this evening, and it's about 8 P.M. in his time zone (EST). Assuming he can do as planned, that means the next turn will be up in a couple hours! :thumbsup:

Edit: Scratch that, the next turn is up!

Fritz is so not going to be popular. :no:

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I wasn't "bending" anything. It really was how I saw the rules. Unless you claim that "perception" is really an inherent and subconscience "bending". By that interpretation, we all "bend" the rules every time we read the charter.

I'm playing a generic elector for a very long time so my stance on RBG's was certainly not to shape some sort of IC agenda. The class war idea was based on my own interpretation of the rules. To claim I was "bending" is to apply a certain amount of forethought and maliciousness to my actions that I simply do not believe applies. :no:

I will demand your apology and that you here-after refer to me as the "deputy lord of charter interpretation."

:clown:

---

Oh dear...PK, I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot.

Sound familiar??

therefore, from my point of view there was some bending going on to fit your idea...which I think is a good idea but should be left up to the gamers to decide IC rather than any attempt a preventing recruitable general becoming Dukes or Steward. In fact they should be allowed to atain these position because they can never become a Prinz or Kaiser due to the IC restrictions.

Am I allowed to have that opinion "oh deputy lord of charter interpretation".

Took a look at the save to decide on my character's actions and noted two gah worthy things.

:gah: 1: Jan von der Pfalz is balding at 22, has almost no traits, and a loyalty decreasing trait. Poor guy, but I guess it'll fit in with my first story for him :clown:

:gah: 2: There are a LOT of full stack Danish armies around northeastern Flanders and Franconia, and through the western half of Swabia. :sweatdrop:

Hmmm...I was thinking more Gah! than gah?, but the smilie will do. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Oh dear...PK, I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot.

Sound familiar??

therefore, from my point of view there was some bending going on to fit your idea...which I think is a good idea but should be left up to the gamers to decide IC rather than any attempt a preventing recruitable general becoming Dukes or Steward. In fact they should be allowed to atain these position because they can never become a Prinz or Kaiser due to the IC restrictions.

Am I allowed to have that opinion "oh deputy lord of charter interpretation".

---

First off, Econ already ruled on this before your first post regarding this issue so your essentially debating with me over a "non-issue". ^^

Second, while you can certainly debate my interpretation of the rules, you will have a hard time convincing me that I did not actually believe that interpretation. Where you see bending, I simply perceived something. I did not have to look very hard to see my stance. It just popped out at me. I do not claim that those who held a different interpretation, somehow "bended". They just saw things differently. And their perception won out because of the power-relationship in the game. If your GM, you get to make your perception and conception of the game reality for the other players. "it's good to be the king" :beam:

You can disagree with that stance all you want but you will find it difficult to convince me that it was actually not my perception. I claim to be "lord-god-emperor" of knowledge regarding my perception. Therefore I will tell you whether I was bending anything or not and you will either believe it or you won't. :yes:

As for whether you can have an opinion, the "deputy lord of charter interpretation" will consider it if you get him a large milk shake. Or a beer. Or... a beer flavored milk shake. Mmmmmmmm.....

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

First off, Econ already ruled on this before your first post regarding this issue so your essentially debating with me over a "non-issue". ^^

Second, while you can certainly debate my interpretation of the rules, you will have a hard time convincing me that I did not actually believe that interpretation. Where you see bending, I simply perceived something. I did not have to look very hard to see my stance. It just popped out at me. I do not claim that those who held a different interpretation, somehow "bended". They just saw things differently. And their perception won out because of the power-relationship in the game. If your GM, you get to make your perception and conception of the game reality for the other players. "it's good to be the king" :beam:

You can disagree with that stance all you want but you will find it difficult to convince me that it was actually not my perception. I claim to be "lord-god-emperor" of knowledge regarding my perception. Therefore I will tell you whether I was bending anything or not and you will either believe it or you won't. :yes:

As for whether you can have an opinion, the "deputy lord of charter interpretation" will consider it if you get him a large milk shake. Or a beer. Or... a beer flavored milk shake. Mmmmmmmm.....

:clown:

---

So then...does all that apply to my opinion that:

I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot?

And yes Econ ruled so we have a result.

His decision doesn't magically remove the ability to discuss it, or in fact work out how one sentence can be interpretted in completely opposite directions.

Can you explain your thought process on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

So then...does all that apply to my opinion that:

I read the same section you referred to and concluded that I saw nothing in the rules that restricts who can be Duke and who cannot?

And yes Econ ruled so we have a result.

His decision doesn't magically remove the ability to discuss it, or in fact work out how one sentence can be interpreted in completely opposite directions.

Can you explain your thought process on it?

---

Alright, I'll just state that I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and am just answering AG's question. Econ ruled and I'm happy with it.

But here was where I was coming from:

I read that section of the charter and saw that generals could not be Dukes. I assumed that it carried forward to the present. That part of the charter was active at 1080. I thought things written in 1080 were good in 1332 since no one ever changed the law.

When I saw "generals", I thought it meant all "generals" in the game, period. Starting generals, generals gained through bribery, recruitable generals, ect...

I took the law and extended it to present day. We've done it before. We apply laws that were written in the game over 250 hundred years ago and keep using them until they are amended. Usually no one bats an eye over it.

For me it was an easy leap. It wasn't part of an IC agenda. If anything, playing a generic elector would make my character more sympathetic to the plight of the common self-made man.

Others read the charter differently. And people decided that since the law only applied to the beginning of the game, then it shouldn't hamstring us today. And that's cool with me. I am not really "anti-RBG" no matter how many "RBG groveling CA's" I may propose. I just read the charter a certain way and that informed my opinion on Econ's statement about Zim being Duke.

So, for me, the matter is settled. But that is how I arrived at my first stance on the issue and why. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Alright, I'll just state that I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and am just answering AG's question. Econ ruled and I'm happy with it.

But here was where I was coming from:

I read that section of the charter and saw that generals could not be Dukes. I assumed that it carried forward to the present. That part of the charter was active at 1080. I thought things written in 1080 were good in 1332 since no one ever changed the law.

When I saw "generals", I thought it meant all "generals" in the game, period. Starting generals, generals gained through bribery, recruitable generals, ect...

I took the law and extended it to present day. We've done it before. We apply laws that were written in the game over 250 hundred years ago and keep using them until they are amended. Usually no one bats an eye over it.

For me it was an easy leap. It wasn't part of an IC agenda. If anything, playing a generic elector would make my character more sympathetic to the plight of the common self-made man.

Others read the charter differently. And people decided that since the law only applied to the beginning of the game, then it shouldn't hamstring us today. And that's cool with me. I am not really "anti-RBG" no matter how many "RBG groveling CA's" I may propose. I just read the charter a certain way and that informed my opinion on Econ's statement about Zim being Duke.

So, for me, the matter is settled. But that is how I arrived at my first stance on the issue and why. :yes:

---

Ok that's very clear.

Which sentence was the one that made it clear for you? I can't see it...which probably could be how we have come to opposite views on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Ok that's very clear.

Which sentence was the one that made it clear for you? I can't see it...which probably could be how we have come to opposite views on the issue.

---

Let me dig it out of an old post in here from earlier today,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Stewards themselves are not Counts. Like Otto in Innsbruck, they are just soldiers, self-made men of lesser station [think Denethor in Lord of the Rings]. They could be rewarded by being made a Count by their Duke when he spawns, though. And they could marry into the Royal line, potentially becoming the Duke themselves.

I took this line, which I now know was meant only for the beginning three generals, and applied it to our present situation with RBG's. I saw generals not being able to be Duke unless they marry in. I assumed it applied to all generals regardless of time or circumstance.

See what happens when you assume... :embarassed:

This is why I am only worthy of being the "deputy loci". :yes:

Ah ha,

Now I get it.

Yes the context back then shows the "marriage bit" needing to happen before becoming a Duke.

It's actually a very literal assumption now I've re-read it. What a "literal assumption" is now has to be clarified.

Due to Austria's situation over the decades I would have never found that line. At one stage the Nobles had to be "adopted" so they we not even part of the original blood line of the Duchy. Which is no worse in my opinion that having no blood line at all. Adoption into the nobility doesn't have to be through blood in my view.

Also at one point Karl Zirn could have died without a blood relative to assume the position for Arnold.

My circumstance meant I would have never seen that as a hard and fast rule that would prevent RBG's holding the position of Steward or Duke.

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem! :yes:

I just saw what I thought was established law, and then applied it to today's circumstances. I didn't even think of the context in which the law was created in or Austria's past situation. That's why I didn't see it as "bending" or "over-analyzing". It was "assuming". No less a crime but a different crime. :yes:

Now about my beer flavored shake...

I prefer Guinness...

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

No less a crime but a different crime.

---

Considering it is a lesser crime the shake options are;

Victoria Bitter

Toohey's or Coopers Pale Ale. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Considering it is a lesser crime the shake options are;

Victoria Bitter

Toohey's or Coopers Pale Ale. :beam:

---

I'm a stout fan myself. Which one of those is the darkest sludgiest beer of the three? I like to eat my beer with a spoon. :beam:

none actually the pale ale is cloudy.

I'm also a dark beer guy myself.

John Smith's, Killkenny, Guiness they are all good.

Guinness is my old stand by. But I also like Imperial Stouts like Samuel Smith and Old Rasputin (9% alcohol beer... :2thumbsup: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Guinness is my old stand by. But I also like Imperial Stouts like Samuel Smith and Old Rasputin (9% alcohol beer... :2thumbsup: )

---

I think I've had Old Rasputin before...
I also prefer darker beers, which tends to mean Guiness in most American stores, although there are some delicious microbrews where I live now in the Northwest.

~:cheers:

This thread is starting to make me thirsty...

Too bad it's 2:15am where I am. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

This thread is starting to make me thirsty...

Too bad it's 2:15am where I am. :shame:

---

You must be in the western hemisphere then, it's 12:21 here(Pacific Time).
I don't have any beer at home, but I do have half a bottle of Russia vodka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

You must be in the western hemisphere then, it's 12:21 here(Pacific Time).
I don't have any beer at home, but I do have half a bottle of Russia vodka.

---

I'm on US CT. I'm around Chicagoland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I'm on US CT. I'm around Chicagoland.

---

I'm in Oregon right now, but I used to live in CT, too (Texas in my case).

Taking the save to recapture Stettin, per TC's permission.

:egypt:

Stettin has been sacked. New save is:

http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/kotr1332-2.zip

I'll be posting screenshots of the results shortly.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

Fritz is so not going to be popular. :no:

:egypt:

---

If he starts moving west against some of those nasty Danish stacks ravaging the rest of Franconia and near my border, I'll commission a statue of Saint Fritz to be built in Antwerp, with a plaque detailing his heroic qualities and adventures. :clown:

I have a feeling Stettin is going to be a shell of a city after this, and Fritz is definitely looking for a fight.

Very nice battle report, Ramses II CP, and a brilliant victory! :bow:

Anyone want to place bets on how many religious unrest armies TC will spawn at Stattin for the next year after Ramses' write-up of sack number2 and feeding the fire? :laugh4:

P.S.: The new players may already know it, but in case they don't, and to avoid any problems: When you play a battle, you have exactly one attempt at it. If you get defeated (or your siege tools all get burned down before you get to assault) then that is it and you should write-up the defeat and post the save again. Replaying a battle is not allowed in this PBM even if your character dies in battle. Thank you. :2thumbsup:

I'll put 20 florins on three rebel armies, FH. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Anyone want to place bets on how many religious unrest armies TC will spawn at Stattin for the next year after Ramses' write-up of sack number2 and feeding the fire? :laugh4:

---

I'm surprised that there was no added unrest caused from four Catholic and Lutheran armies destroying each other which resulted in the death of three prominent religious figures. Maybe both sides felt it was a draw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I'm surprised that there was no added unrest caused from four Catholic and Lutheran armies destroying each other which resulted in the death of three prominent religious figures. Maybe both sides felt it was a draw?

---

There was intense discussion about this behind the scenes and we felt that the Lutheran and Chirstian relief armies that were spawned already were the added unrest. Since the Christians won rather decisively, there would be no additional unrest especially as Hans during his lifetime had persecuted most Lutherans in Swabia already or converted them as he had a bishop and a cardinal with him at all times. Basically: There are not enough Lutherans left at Bern and Catholics won't kill each other for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

P.S.: The new players may already know it, but in case they don't, and to avoid any problems: When you play a battle, you have exactly one attempt at it. If you get defeated (or your siege tools all get burned down before you get to assault) then that is it and you should write-up the defeat and post the save again. Replaying a battle is not allowed in this PBM even if your character dies in battle. Thank you. :2thumbsup:

---

I totally agree. (and my post in the Crusade thread may have inspired your post)

Our avatars are in a war. Things happen. It's crappy but you suck it up. We've had avatars die from assassination, stray flaming catapult shots, and tower arrows. You will get another avatar if yours dies. Many people in here are on their 2nd or 3rd avatar. (GH is about to get his 5th).

Being a medieval general in a faction that is perpetually at war with most of the known world is not a safe profession. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

You will get another avatar if yours dies.

---

Psst, keep that secret! Someone might get the idea of starting at the eldest Steffen child and getting him killed and work his way down the line :bounce:

I'm always surprised to hear about people replaying battles. I don't think it ever even occurred to me until I saw people on the org saying they did it. It's hard enough to lose a battle against the AI as is, and nice when it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

P.S.: The new players may already know it, but in case they don't, and to avoid any problems: When you play a battle, you have exactly one attempt at it. If you get defeated (or your siege tools all get burned down before you get to assault) then that is it and you should write-up the defeat and post the save again. Replaying a battle is not allowed in this PBM even if your character dies in battle. Thank you. :2thumbsup:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I'm always surprised to hear about people replaying battles. I don't think it ever even occurred to me until I saw people on the org saying they did it. It's hard enough to lose a battle against the AI as is, and nice when it happens.

---

In my SP games, I am a reload fiend. I quick save before the end of every turn. If a general gets a Pagan Magician or a Princess gets a Secret Lover, I reload the save and end the turn again. Same if a general gets assassinated. In the Crusade game, the Egyptians tried to assassinate my generals every turn. If they succeeded, I just reloaded and ended turn again. The generals racked up some mad anti-assassin traits though. ^^

But MP games are different. Since your playing against/with other people you don't reload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Psst, keep that secret! Someone might get the idea of starting at the eldest Steffen child and getting him killed and work his way down the line :bounce:

---

That's just evil. Funny... but evil.

Interesting. I can probably count the number of times I've reloaded a game since MTW1 on the fingers of one hand. I tend to do it in the newer games if I order an agent to go one direction and he walks right into a visible enemy unit several steps into his journey and loses all his movement points (If I could, I'd have diplomats flogged for that :whip: ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

In my SP games, I am a reload fiend. I quick save before the end of every turn. If a general gets a Pagan Magician or a Princess gets a Secret Lover, I reload the save and end the turn again. Same if a general gets assassinated. In the Crusade game, the Egyptians tried to assassinate my generals every turn. If they succeeded, I just reloaded and ended turn again. The generals racked up some mad anti-assassin traits though. ^^

But MP games are different. Since your playing against/with other people you don't reload.

---

The thing of it is, from my perspective, Fritz is rather stuck. There's nothing in him that leads me to believe he's going to back down or show mercy any time soon. If playing him that way gets him killed, he'll die true to himself.

What I mean is, of course as a player I see things from the 'meta game' perspective; I want less religious unrest and so on. Then I read Fritz's life story, and see the things he's done already, where his loyalties lie, and what his traits are and he looked like an, angry, jingoistic, inaccessable, unpleasant guy. He's infertile and unmarried in an era when manhood meant half a dozen children at least.

So I'm not going to be mad if I get put in a dark place and can't make my way out. That's where Fritz is headed anyway. That's probably his logical end.

And, honestly, I don't know if there are enough people left in Stettin to make three stacks of religious nuts. :laugh4:

:egypt:

edit: Though I do imagine Peter, one of the few people he respects, is going to smack him down hard on all counts. After all, Stettin is Peter's city too and by higher authority, and Peter has just become Prinz of the whole Reich, Lutheran and Catholic alike.

Saint Fritz, Ramses, "Saint" Fritz. At least, that is how he will be known in Antwerp if the swords of his men are soaked in the blood of Danes. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

(GH is about to get his 5th).

---

...and I love them all equally. ~:grouphug:

Well, except for Salier. He was a bit annoying at times.

Can anyone familiar with Factionheir's trait fixer tell me if they know anything about the loyalty traits? My character started with a minor loyalty reducing trait (speaks of loyalty). I'm curious if this is likely to get worse, and if there is a way to reverse it. I have this nagging fear about finding him becoming a rebel unit (the grey rebels, that is) some turn.

Dieter has had 'speaks of loyalty' since I took him and it hasn't advanced at all but he has gained feels respected or something along that track so he now has quite high loyalty, I don't think it's worth worrying about.

Thanks, EF. I don't bother much with loyalty in SP(except not to use generals under 3 loyalty) so I didn't know what kind of triggers it had. I know some traits tend to get worse and worse, even if you don't do anything, so I was worried. The trait even fits well from a roleplaying perspective, since he did abandon his original side of the war.

As of now he has a respectable 4 loyalty, so he isn't at immediate risk.

Disloyal/Loyal traits do not change over time and are gained (or not gained) on character creation.
The only time they can change, is when you character accepts/refuses a bribe.

The Content/DiscontentGeneral line of traits changes fairly frequently depending on a variety of factors.

See the former as your character's general outlook on loyalty and the latter as how he feels about his station currently.

I wouldn't stress to much about your characters' traits. You eventually pile on so many of them that it's impossible to include them all in your portrayal. I tend to pick out a few that are unusual or seem to stand out, then I build on those. New traits and ancillaries that conflict with that personality either get ignored or used to create the basis of an event that changes my character on a fundamental level. Do not be afraid to just forget about the loyalty trait if it is just an annoyance to you. This is your character, after all, and he is whoever you say he is. The traits should be considered suggestions for behavior, not rules.

What he said.

Thanks, guys. My biggest fear was that "speaks of loyalty" would eventually change into some -6 loyalty trait that meant any turn spent out of a settlement would be my last (character turning rebel). Knowing it won't makes me feel much better.

I haven't even thought out my character's personality completely. :clown:
He has so few traits, even for a young, new general, it will be interesting to see what kind he accumulates as the game goes on. I'll probably take in account the ones that seem most interesting as I develop his personality :yes:

Hi Zim,

At the start you can really use the traits to develop your character...it's only when they start piling up that you need to take a "broad brush" approach to it.

Some of them can be quite contradictory as time goes on.

I know AG, but at the start my character has all of three traits, Speaks of Loyalty, Religious, and the one that gives two stars. A pious traitor with a head for battle? :clown:

I think I'll have to pick up at least a few more to use to develop my character's personality. It'll be fun, even more than most new generals, my guy is a blank slate.

haha peter is great attacker, great commander, promising commander, likes the dark, confident defender, and is poor against numbers (which reduces defense). go figure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

I know AG, but at the start my character has all of three traits, Speaks of Loyalty, Religious, and the one that gives two stars. A pious traitor with a head for battle? :clown:

I think I'll have to pick up at least a few more to use to develop my character's personality. It'll be fun, even more than most new generals, my guy is a blank slate.

---

lol,

good idea to wait given the circumstances.

Hi All,

It's the battle of the dudes without out the game chaps.

Roadkill doesn't have the game installed and as his Duke I'm trying to put together a recruiting order for him.

I'm overseas and therefore can't check what he has.

Can someone post the number of units Lorenz Zirn has currently so I can place an order?

Cheers
AG

I will send you something now!

Thanks NN

Gentlemen, I would like to inform you of several odd supposed coincidences I have noticed about the events in Swabia of 1330-1332. I believe they point to an inarguable conclusion.

First, Jan von Hamburg, king of Outremer, supposedly falls in battle at Bern, in central Swabia. Then, within 2 years, another man by the name of Jan, this time claiming to be "von der Pfalz" appears in Antwerp, arriving from, you guessed it, central Swabia. This man claims to be 22, but is completely bald.

The obvious conclusion? These Jans are one and the same! King Jan did not die at Bern, but suffered a blow on the head, lost his memory, joined a monastery in central Swabia for two years where he was forced to shave his head as part of his vows, then joined the services of Wolfgang Hummel.

I believe my logic to be beyond arguing with.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Stranger things have happened, such as Siegfried von Kastilien becoming Kaiser after Kaiser Jobst von Salza was killed by a stray catapult shot in a battle where Siegfried was a participant...

I respected Ituralde as a player, so I didn't assume it was fratricide, but I've always wondered, it was very convenient. :laugh4:

Turns out that flaming catapult shot changed the history of the Reich in many ways, ushering in the reign of Siegfried the Mad.

There has been a couple of great twists in the game.

As much as we have previously been annoyed at the games allocation of succession it has made things very entertaining as we adjust the script to fit.

I like it in the end.

Is there even a remote chance of Arnold being able to marry one of these budding princesses?

And don't get all horrified...apart from the grey hair he still looks 30 :-)

He's a mature man now and the whoring has made way for more stable girlfriends...at least that is what I have in my mind.

Quote:

---

Is there even a remote chance of Arnold being able to marry one of these budding princesses?

---

Um...

Arnold and Elberhard are first cousins!!!!!!!

Ewwww.....

*blech*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

As for traits, I tried my best to rp every single one of Jan's traits. I did rank them based on strength so some came through more than others. While he did have over 13 chivalry, I made sure his "cruel and cunning" came out in politics. And so forth...


And Zim... no

:D

I really couldn't care less lol

Cousin's, brothers, sisters...anything will do.

But aren't there other princesses out there PK?

Read the stories thread...make a decision :book:

Quote:

---

I really couldn't care less lol

---

*Barf*

Quote:

---

Cousin's, brothers, sisters...anything will do.

---

*Baaaarf*

Quote:

---

But aren't there other princesses out there PK?

---

Not that I know of.... *Baaaaarf*

Quote:

---

Read the stories thread...make a decision :book:

---

*reads the story thread and sees nothing that stops him from barfing some more*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

barfing could be from talk of Arnold marrying his cousin's daughter or from Kevin being quite drunk. You decide...

PK, obviously you are just trying to cover up since I'm so close to the truth. ~;p

Of course, if he isn't von Hamburg, my Jan would be one of the only characters not in the Kaiser's family tree somewhere, and a perfect match for one of his daughters.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

I think he is barfing from drinking a little too much.

Still, pretty funny with the barf commentary :laugh4:

On a serious note, I think it's been fascinating reading up on how people have coped (and are coping) with the lack of available resources during the Cataclysm.

You have people taking armies out to attack and sack enemy territory (a la Fritz, and Hummel, although he actually kept the city), people finding ways to sack/confiscate resources in their own cities (Fritz again, plus some two or three others in the past, I believe), or making appeals to the people of their Duchy/Counties for soldiers (Peter, me, deguerra).

It's kind of cool to see all these things done, and says a lot about how people see their characters.

well if i had more cities to sack i might go for that option, but the only nearby one is yours :idea2: :laugh4:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deguerra

well if i had more cities to sack i might go for that option, but the only nearby one is yours :idea2: :laugh4:

---

Over my dead body! :duel:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quite literally, I guess, if you tried it :clown:

well considering that currently youre the one with the army and the walls, whereas im all by my onesies, i have my doubts as to my siege capabilities. getting those bodyguards to dismount and push a battering ram is such a chore:furious3:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

~;p

Just a friendly warning if you do try to storm my town. My men do spit over the wall from time to time. :clown:

I kind of lucked out in the French being more aggressive than the Danes, or Antwerp might be under siege. You'd have 2 wealth per turn and three shiny militia garrison units if Bruges hadn't been sieged in the very turn your guy was made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

On a serious note, I think it's been fascinating reading up on how people have coped (and are coping) with the lack of available resources during the Cataclysm.

You have people taking armies out to attack and sack enemy territory (a la Fritz, and Hummel, although he actually kept the city), people finding ways to sack/confiscate resources in their own cities (Fritz again, plus some two or three others in the past, I believe), or making appeals to the people of their Duchy/Counties for soldiers (Peter, me, deguerra).

It's kind of cool to see all these things done, and says a lot about how people see their characters.

---

Don't forget having your avatar accidentally sparking a full blown religious war just so you can get him an instant full stack army to implement a political agenda. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

PK, obviously you are just trying to cover up since I'm so close to the truth. ~;p

---

I deny everything. :P

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I think he is barfing from drinking a little too much.

---

I deny everything.

And any drunken PM's I may, or may not have sent you, do not prove anything. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Don't forget having your avatar accidentally sparking a full blown religious war just so you can get him an instant full stack army to implement a political agenda. ;)

---

Accidentally? I told you that would happen beforehand. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Accidentally? I told you that would happen beforehand. :laugh4:

---

Yes, but for Jan it was an accident. For me, I wanted my avatar to have an army. That and I wanted to spark something fun and interesting for the game. :2thumbsup:

For Jan though, everything that resulted was quite a surprise. If he lived through Bern, he'd feel pretty bad about everything right now. :shame: