I have/am uploading the 1244 final save.
Am ending turn now.
Printable View
I have/am uploading the 1244 final save.
Am ending turn now.
warluster, I think sardina was to be gifted to the sicilians anyway. We could just help them siege the city, it would still be IC as they are our oldest allies.
Sicily isn't siegeing it though, their just standing nearby. Its the SPanish who are siegeing it.
The only save so far is Ituralde's. There's little point uploading a final 1244 save if there are no more battles. A start of 1245 one would be more interesting, but remember to give the AI its cash flow injection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
The invasion of Corsica and Sardniia has turned into a comedy of errors, this is terrible.....
man diet is so quiet... i might start an argument for no reason!
There's nothing to discuss about, we need to see the next yearQuote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
yeah, im afraid that im slowly starting to be more respected tho... i wouldnt want to argue about nothing, per se...
Warluster - it is 48 hours since Ituralde posted his save; what is the hold up?
The fact that it's night in Australia ~D
Guess some reallife business, we have that, but than you are a mod, we all know you're a bot
:hide:
Sorry, I won't say any excuses but this: I will try to get the save up, but I'm going mountain climbing!\
I hit end turn but forgot the cash thing, doing that now. Theres a few exciting things happening in 1246! :P
I am/have uploaded the 1246 save.
Any battles to fight?
Thorn is under siege, can we sally out?
Given that Warluster is probably up a mountain somewhere, I think it would be ok to take some initiative and sally out. I have not looked, but suspect there is more than one player controlled general in Thorn - can you liase to sort out who fights the battle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Right, it's an all cav army we will have to fight, and we need to fight it as the Ruskies are bringing up another big army, and we need all the retraining we can get now.
Gibson, DG or myself can fight it. Peter will command it, make it a night battle, Peter will have more command then.
If Gibson or DG don't fight it till tomorrow I will fight it.
u can take it stig, im busy
That's seconded. May have holidays, but that's taking up more time than I expected it to :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
:balloon2:
Okae Dokey:
Stig, you can sally out if you want.
Paris is under siege, Xdeathfire you have the SHA nearby, do you wish to attack?
1246-1.zip save
Theres the save, first to claim is first to play, but say you've got it!
Hello
I've been reading the posts around here lately and I'm really intrigued by this PBM. I've never done one before but I have a.) played MTW2 since the beginning of the year, b.) played STW and MTW from way back, and c.) LARP'ed so I have a grasp of IC and OOC. I do warn you that I am a little hesitant to make a huge time commitment due to being a grad student and working full time this summer. Also I am hesitant to load mods onto my computer because I have this thing for wanting to stick with vanilla and official patches.
So, thank you for being patient with me and keep up the good work. I applaud you all for making a rich story that is fun to read.
^_^
Awesome,
Seeing as you've read over the OOC thread, I am sure you know, this game doesn't HAVE to take up lots of time, if your playing as just a elector,etc. btw, if you can't fight battles then just Auto it or let someone else fight it.
The game CAN take up lots of time if you fill in higher positions (chancellor,Duke,etc) and if you check the threads constantly :P
Also the mod thing is pretty painless. If you follow the quite easy explanations, you will end up with the possibility to play the game modded or to play the game unmodded. I have two shortcuts on my desktop, one leading to the modded game and one to the vanilla version. So your ability to play vanilla will not be hindered.
hmm, that certainly helps my decision. Well, I'm up for joining if you guys will have me. If you have a general avatar to spare I'll take it. I notice that there are five free but I don't know if any/or all are spoken for. While I feel bad that the houses are a little unbalanced, I would prefer to be in one where there is room for growth. That would seem to preclude Austria or Bavaria for the moment. Franconia has 4 free spots but I read on here that up to three characters have aged to the point where the players will need new characters soon. So, if someone with the authority would let me know what my options are, I'll pick from that.
Thanks,
^_^
Welcome, Privateerkev! It seems only Franconia has spare avatars at the moment (the spare Swabian is too old to invest in), so you have a free pick of any of the four available in that House. There are a few details here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...81&postcount=1
There mugshots and traits may be reported on in the library.
I dled the save and will fight it later today
Haven't been able to fight today yet, and since Xdeath is going first I'll fight it first thing tomorrow.
Okay, I just finished fighting the battle and got a heroic victory yet again. I unfortunately, forgot to take a screenshot of the victory screen statistics, but still remember them. I lost 93 men while I killed 280 and captured 503 French after which I executed.
I have something that has been nagging me, the SHA is just incredibly weak with barely any decent units other than some imperial knights. It would be really helpful given that we have like 30k in the treasury atm to get some new units hired. I am using halberd militia to fight dismounted knights and using mounted sergeants to fight noble knights. If it weren’t for my well placed charges and hoping for a mass rout, my infantry line will literally collapse within 30 secs and everyone will rout. The French also have some really big and scary armies just around the Paris province so yet again, get me a SHA to dream for.
u should request that in the diet : P
I have to second what gibsonsg91921 said, it's a legitimate complaint, but it should be taken up in the Diet since it's an IC concern. Also it'll make for a good debate there.
Just to say that Privateerkev has been assigned Jan von Hamburg.
nice.. more franconians to raise a little heck
http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/kotr-1246-3.rar
Fought and won.
Warluster I filled Thorns recruitement queue, up to you to agree to it, but Thorn really needs good infantry as there's a big Polish army coming and I intend to massacre it.
Also, if you think Ansehelm can leave town safely and head to Magdeburg you have my permission to make him move out.
Welcome to the House of Franconia, privateerkev!
Thanks Ituralde!
Just have been trying to get caught up. Looks like I picked an....interesting time to join the game. :D
lol u should have been there before the last chancellorship election and gotten fredericus voted in.. : P
Well hindsight is 20/20. Yeah I was looking over old threads and saw that. It is safe to assume that Jan would have voted for his dad. But I had only just started posting in the guild back then and didn't even know about PBM. I lurked for a year or two but only in the citadel and the faction guides.
If Ulrich hadn't been elected, we would've missed out on some good entertainment.
It was certainly some of the most intense PM'ing and back room dealing I've been involved in since the game started.
I really hope we work out ways to keep this going for awhile.
I'd like to give the Chancellor job a go, but I will not be able to do that until October due to work issues.
lol i accidentally received a letter from iggy to the austrian electors saying if fredericus got elected the franconians would have their way, so vote hummel
Well, no matter what has happened, a Swabian is Still chancellor. I'm sure that coincidence did not escape them when the wheeling and dealing was being done. ;)
Same here, but for me it's SeptemberQuote:
I'd like to give the Chancellor job a go, but I will not be able to do that until October due to work issues.
@Privateerkev
Right now? A Swabian isn't chancellor right now, but yes, Ulrich was.
yeah now that hes kaiser, hes not in any house.
Theoretically, but he's free to favor whoever he wishes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
So, kaiser's rule completely unbiased and don't give any favor or extra consideration to other houses? riiiiiight...
I may be new and naive at this game but if you believe the above, I have a bridge I would like to sell you...
:laugh4:
----------------------------------
*edit*
After taking a look at the savegame I have come to the conclusion that this or a past chancellor hates all four houses equally because this game is !@#$%'d with a chainsaw. If this was single player I'd just start over. The good news is that it will make for a very interesting roleplaying game which I suspect is what some have been pushing for behind the scenes when they/them completely sabotaged this game. Just to be clear, I am not complaining. I rather play something with some excitement and drama in it. We didn't sign up to play Medieval Total Pajama Party 2.
i meant technically hes no longer a swabian. obviously hes only human...
Sabotaged?Quote:
The good news is that it will make for a very interesting roleplaying game which I suspect is what some have been pushing for behind the scenes when they/them completely sabotaged this game.
Sabotaged??!!
My friend, if we wanted sabotage then I would just run for Chancellor, win, take control of our neighboring factions by using a script and march every single one of their armies into our territory.
This isn't sabotage. This is just an interesting situation. :laugh4:
btw all, a while ago I recommeneded the BBB mod, I've tried it out with DLV, its awesome! You can actually become a Count INGAME! PLus a GrandMaster and stuff! THere are things like conqueror of Constaniople, plus being a Count gives you extra traits!
I highly suggest we use it.
All I meant was that I suspect that there was some backroom dealing and the fact that an avatar formerly of the Swabian house was going to replace a Swabian avatar as chancellor, had to have factored in. People have replied with the fact that Kaisers officially renounce their house. And I am fully aware of that. I am just saying that I suspect that the Kaisers keep playing politics even after they are houseless. I know it would shock and surprise all of you to even consider that someone in politics could be political but there is my audacious claim. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
Well, since I am assuming that all of you are at least moderately decent TW players, then I can only surmise that we are in the situation we are in because someone or someones decided to "spice things up a bit." And I didn't mean "sabotage" as in blow-up-the-game-next-turn-so-no-one-has-fun. I meant "sabotage" as in throw-the-game-a-little-to-make-it-less-boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Lets make a list of general strategic errors about this game:
1.) Many cities are taxed right into revolt. The taxes can be lower and most cities have free upkeep slots that aren't being used. Also damaged buildings aren't being repaired.
2.) The borders are way overextended and there are no natural "walls." In TW games its normal to make the number of borders that border other factions as small as possible. I call these territories "doors". A line of doors, I call a "wall". The best example is in MTW where you have Lithuania and Kiev cutting off Russia from the rest of Europe. This was more important in STW and MTW because it just took one force to guard a territory where now you have to guard multiple ways into a single territory. But the idea still holds. We have way too many doors.
3.) We have almost no navy. Especially for the kinds of movement people want to do with their avatars.
4.) Force distribution is totally out of proportion to the threats we are facing.
We have forces in the middle where they seem to be just sitting when there are dangers on the borders. Even allowing for the fact that some could have been just built, there are still way too many in the middle.
5.) City and castle choices are off too. Any territory that has a port should be a city. Some interior spots and some strategic "doors" should be castles. This way we make money. Too many castles means you just have things you don't have the money to buy.
6.) It seems like we accepted way too many guilds. When you don't have alot of money the guild accepting really sucks up the florins.
7.) It seems like we are planning new offensives when we can't even defend what we have. Ideally, we should give away some of what we have and consolidate the Reich so it is easier to defend.
Conclusion: We are severely economically and strategically hampered and in very real danger of experiencing major setbacks in the near future. If we don't give up territories and consolidate, we will have territories taken from us.
So, I can only come to two possible answers as to why we are in this predicament. Either some of us are completely incompetent(which I do not believe). Or someone or someones are either making things break through poor strategic planning or benign neglect. I know some of you may claim a third reason is the democratic nature of our game but since there is only one person actually playing the game at a time, I have discounted that out of hand.
Welcome aboard Privateerkev. It's always good to get a fresh set of eyes looking at the PBM. Your analysis is insightful, but I don't agree with your conclusion that the current Chancellor is deliberately sabotaging the game.
We've recently had, as you might be aware, an impeachment, and the previous Chancellor was able to leave quite a mark in the few years he was in power. It seems we're still recovering from that. Also, while I'm sure that all the players are good generals, we're all good to great on the battle map, the same might not be said of the campaign map, i.e. not everyone is a great administrator. By that, I mean taking the passed edicts, the build queues, the household army orders and the strategic situation and weaving them into a cohesive whole.
Of course I could be wrong, it's been known to happen.
Take your suspicions into the Diet. Your avatar is a Franconian, he should have no problem speaking out against the current and past regime. It'll make the IC discussion more interesting. You'll also become more familiar with the hinterlands of the Reich as your avatar builds watchtowers for the next 20 years. :laugh4:
Edit: As for Kaiser being outside the Houses and acting as a stabilizing force. . .Henry (econ21) kept to that ideal. Heinrich (GH) never had a house to begin with, but certainly did not shy away from being an "activist" Kaiser. It remains to be seen what approach Jobst (Warluster) will take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
I never said for sure that it was the current one. I said, "After taking a look at the savegame I have come to the conclusion that this or a past chancellor hates all four houses equally because this game is !@#$%'d with a chainsaw."
As for IC, my character would not say that right now. IC I am a young naive idealistic crusader who is afraid of offending his betters and dishonoring his father. OOC I am an outspoken and opinionated grad student who is often accused of thinking far too much about things. :beam:
All I have been doing is making observations and positing my theories as to what may have caused what I am observing. I will reiterate, I am not complaining. IC I would be appalled and dismayed at the poor state of affairs in the Reich. OCC I am highly amused and relish the challenge and rich RP'ing opportunities. I only made the list to support my theory that someone has or is throwing a monkey wrench into the game for the purpose of providing us a richer and more exciting game experience. It would be boring if we womped the AI and had the whole world by now...
Well, we are giving gobs of money to the AI factions, and we have taken OOC steps to keep the game challenging that a single player wouldn't normally do, i.e. let Milan hang around or curb our expansion.
Also there tends to weak points at the end of one term and the beginning of another, when the PBM is handed off. I guess the shift in philosophies, playing style and goals of each Chancellor causes this. Also, it depends on the Electors. Our navy has fallen into disrepair because it wasn't a point of emphasis in the past few Diet sessions for edicts.
I think those are good points. It could simply be that stuff gets "lost in the handoff". I also have been known to be wrong many times. I still have my suspicions that there is more going on than we know. Its the nature of RP'ing. In most RP's and LARP's there becomes a point where the gm's and veteran players stop trying to win and start trying to come up with ways to keep the game fun and fresh so people will keep coming back every week. If we are playing to win, then we are doing exactly the wrong things. If we are playing to have fun and keep things interesting, then we are doing exactly the right things. If we played to win then the game would have been over by now and we'd just have to start a new one. I think it would also be less fun than it is now. So I definitely would prefer we keep doing what we are doing but I enjoy sitting and theorizing about what is going on behind the scenes. Since so little is going on IC all we can do right now is chat and gossip on the OCC thread.
Privateerkev, one of the fun things about PBMing is that everyone has their own idea about how to run a kingdom and it is fun as Chancellor to try to impose one's own ideas on top of what earlier players have bequeathed. I think you are right, the previous Chancellor, Ignoramus did try to stir things up but he had only a turn or two to do it (he was impeached for his pains), so he can't be blamed for everything you list. The current Chancellor has had only a turn or so to make his mark.
A few thoughts on your observations:
The latest savegame is a start of turn situation - hopefully the Chancellor will lower taxes and repair buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
We've expanded in a higgledy-piggledy kind of way - there was an initial burst of expansion, but then there has been a tension between Houses wanting to conquer neighbours and others wanting to curtail expansion. Only Outremer's borders have really been planned and then they were designed without consideration of "walls" - indeed, the whole idea was to make us overextended and vulnerable to Turks, Egyptians and Mongols.Quote:
2.) The borders are way overextended and there are no natural "walls."
I suspect there is an untold story about our navy. We had a massive fleet that landed Hans near Sofia - it's not visible any more. There was also a large Egyptian fleet that - in some games where I played on from the save - destroyed several of our smaller fleets. I can't see that enemy fleet now. I wonder if there has been some interesting naval action that has not been emphasised in discussion.Quote:
3.) We have almost no navy. Especially for the kinds of movement people want to do with their avatars.
We have tended to play with 4 Household Armies + Jobst's armies in Europe. Outremer has been catching its breath from the 1st Mongol wave, but was deliberately kept dispersed by the Hummel.Quote:
4.) Force distribution is totally out of proportion to the threats we are facing.
We have forces in the middle where they seem to be just sitting when there are dangers on the borders. Even allowing for the fact that some could have been just built, there are still way too many in the middle.
Money has not been a constraint, in my experience. In fact, we've been looking for ways to waste it (mandating the construction of religious buildings) to make things more challenging. City-castle decisions are up to the governors and Dukes. Coastal Thorn and Ragusa were too well developed by the AI and too strategic to convert to cities. Ditto Acre and Adana.Quote:
5.) City and castle choices are off too. Any territory that has a port should be a city. Some interior spots and some strategic "doors" should be castles. This way we make money. Too many castles means you just have things you don't have the money to buy.
We have a lot of merchant guilds, which are lucrative. I haven't noticed an excess of other types.Quote:
6.) It seems like we accepted way too many guilds. When you don't have alot of money the guild accepting really sucks up the florins.
Try proposing that in character and see how many votes you get!Quote:
7.) It seems like we are planning new offensives when we can't even defend what we have. Ideally, we should give away some of what we have and consolidate the Reich so it is easier to defend.
The only real force that is is near Magdeburg and that will be led by Ansehelm against Russia.Quote:
4.) Force distribution is totally out of proportion to the threats we are facing.
We have forces in the middle where they seem to be just sitting when there are dangers on the borders. Even allowing for the fact that some could have been just built, there are still way too many in the middle.
Which will also deal with your point #7. Currently our biggest enemies are France, Russia and Poland on the European mainland.
The Diet has not allowed Swabia to move against France.
Ansehelm will destroy the Russian threat by moving against Moscow and sacking it. (By the time he gets back there will be a new Diet session, and I intend to let him either sack some Russian cities on the return trip or move into Poland).
And while Ansehelm makes sure the Russian are getting what they deserve the FHA can easely stop the Poles that want to attack Thorn.
A better way of looking at the state of the empire is by checking out the first save and the last save of each chancellorship. That way you can see what each chancellor has done overall and where there are strengths and weaknesses in administration. Of course that has to then be looked at in context of edicts and CAs.
I believe that we've been doing quite well so far in terms of minding our own business rather than aggressively expanding.
I have been playing this mode too. Trying to record it for an AAR with the English. Very interesting for young avatars to develope by keeping them in capitals or cities with religous buildings to build traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
Everything is exactly as it appears. There is no man behind the curtain. Ignore the cameras and continue about your business. All is well. http://absolutedreams.net/forums/smiley/ninja.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
*sigh* It seems again that I have not made myself clear. This is not about proposing things in character. This is about being bored and gossiping on an OOC thread about the game on a pure strategic level as well as trying to divine the back room machinations that go on in all RP style games. I have no intention of talking about this IC anytime in the near future because my character probably wouldn't even know half of this stuff and he certainly wouldn't say anything. Others are more than welcome to take up this cause IC as long as they don't metagame and attribute or infer the quotes and ideas to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
From my experience, we are making far too little money for the size of Empire we have. And its not just the army's fault because it is relatively small in proportion to our land mass. Its not that our army expenditure is too big for our empire. Its that it is that it is too big for our economy because our economy is too small for our empire. We do not have anywhere the money to do all the things people want to do. I suspect that some thought one way to curtail expansion would be to starve the economy to the point where we can't do what we want with it and are forced to make cuts and concessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
That, more than anything, proves my point. People here wanted to put us in a precarious situation to make it more interesting, and by extension, more fun. Now I don't mind that at all but I find it interesting that everyone is crawling out of the woodwork to deny it. Lets at least admit to each other OOC about how we conceptualize playing the game. I applaud the works of some to complicate our in game situation. I am just getting slightly annoyed that everyone is trying to deny it and getting defensive when I am pointing out the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Yes and from a purely strategic standpoint, letting you take a large percentage of our forces, send them against a larger and more superior enemy, deep into enemy land where you are likely to get cut off, and likely suffer flanking attacks that will soon take Thorn itself, is possibly the worse thing we could do as an Empire at the moment. And with the disposition of forces, I don't think we could take France right now or for the near future. The quality and quantity just aren't there and would force us to sacrifice other parts of the Empire for the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Were actually in the worst of both world right now. If your going to aggressively expand, then you should do it right and follow askthepizzaguy's model in the citadel. If your not going to expand, then you make an easily defendable empire and make smart calculated moves with your excess forces for obvious and immediate strategic gain. We have done neither. We have expanded like swords deep into territory claimed by other factions and pissed them off. Deep narrow thrusts into enemy territory always bring the risk of having your attack cut off at the base. At the very least it takes a disproportionate amount of resources to maintain and defend the frontier so far from source of supply, reinforcements, and flanking supporting armies. All we have done is made it inevitable that we will be at war on all sides for the duration of the game. And while that will probably make for a much more enjoyable game, I rather not have all of us lapse into denial at our strategic situation. If we are going to basically bound and gag ourselves, shouldn't we be fostering OOC discussion about it so everyone's on the same page and doesn't get disappointed like Stig did during the last chancellor's reign?Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
In general, I'm kind of surprised at some of the responses I have gotten. I was hoping this line of conversation would spark discussion about the nature of the game we play together. Instead its mainly a list of denials and exasperations at the very idea that people could be political in what is essentially a political simulation. Being new here, I may have mis-understood what the OOC thread was for. Since I have gotten so much negative reaction and so little positive discussion, I will think more carefully about talking about my ideas and theories since so many people seem to be in denial about the nature of the game, defensive about how they play the game, or both.
-----------------------------------
*edit*
When I read that, the scene in Star Wars flashed in my head when Obi-Wan was convincing the Stormtroopers that there was nothing to see here.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Its funny, your the first one to actually take my comments for how I meant them. Everyone else who has posted seems busy trying to persuade me there are no cameras. At least metaphorically speaking
Are puppets aware of the puppet master? Do they see their strings or do they believe they dance of their own volition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I think some are aware to a point. It is possible to study power relationships, sociology, psychology, and history to the point where you do get somewhat more aware of the ways those in power compel you to do what they want you to do. Whats funny is that there are those on here that are trying to convince me that there is no puppet master when a game like this definitely needs one. If I was in a LARP and I made a comment that the ST's are trying to stir things up, everyone would shrug because its so obvious that that is what a good ST does. But here its treated like some sort of blasphemy. And when the GM of this game himself attempts to infer that there is no puppetmaster, that becomes more problematic because I have to wonder if he a.) really believes it or b.) is trying to discredit what I am saying in order keep the machinations secret. And I am talking about Econ but then he goes and basically admits that there are machinations going on behind the scene. I get the feeling that everyone is kind of admitting that I am right about some things but they would prefer I stop talking about it in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
*sees a little red lazer dot on his chest and realizes he has said far too much*
x_x
*edited out grammer errors*
Well, the nice thing about this kind of game is that there really isn't a specific person in control. econ21 'manages' the game, but he has no more influence in the actual proceedings than what he has earned IC. That means that anyone who manages to gain enough power can do what they will, whether everyone else is aware of it or not. It's already been done twice in a major manner our previous game, which resulted in a MP-style Civil War, and in the early days of this game when Kaiser Heinrich went his own way and attacked the Pope. If you want to throw a wrench into the works or otherwise stir things up, all you have to do is gain sufficient power. Everything else comes from there.
Again its nice to have someone admit that some of those that acquire the power to enact change, choose to do so for the purposes of making the game more interesting. A short and simple point but one that seems to have caused some debate and contention on this thread. I never accused anyone of doing it maliciously. I just claimed that it was being done because others seem to claim that it is not being done. This started with people trying to claim that Kaiser's never ever favor other houses and that no thought at all was given to the fact that the current kaiser/chancellor hails from the same house as the previous chancellor. This basically gave one house the ability to enact a political agenda without suffering major long term losses. The first chancellor was able to go and enact his/others agenda while knowing that if he was brought down, then another chancellor with roots from the same house would step into power. Pretty brilliant if you ask me because in game they seem to have gotten away with it. In fact it seems that even out of game no one has really caught on though I suspect a lot of people are keeping quiet about what they know. And it was me posting this theory that basically started this whole line of discussion and debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Oh dear, before we go all Foucalt's Pendulum here, a review of the OCC threads will show what sorts of self-handicapping we have used and the debate on how much we should do it. It'll take some time to go over Privateerkev, but you'll get a sense of what we've gone through to reach the present balance.
If we have played the PBM using askthepizzaguy's uber-blitzkrieg tactics, it would have been over by now. I prefer a more leisurely pace, others have different views.
The PBM is also the product of committee decision making, and as such is imperfect and at times works at cross purposes. We have expanded and turtled at the whims of the Electors and Chancellors, and the paradigm can change from one Diet Session to another. To expect optimum game play, and that of course depends on how each of us defines it, is to court disappointment.
You're correct in that conversations about "house rules" and such belong in the OOC thread, but I think conversations about how we should conduct the business of the Empire, i.e. bring in more revenue or establishing a defensible border, should occur IC in the Diet or PMs.
PrivateerKev why did you join if you don't agree to what we are doing?
We are playing this game out of fun, to have a good PBM, not to win as fast as possible. It's a game, it should be fun.
It won't weaken anything Magdeburg is used to train the army, while Magdeburg, being a small castle would normally not be used.Quote:
Yes and from a purely strategic standpoint, letting you take a large percentage of our forces, send them against a larger and more superior enemy, deep into enemy land where you are likely to get cut off, and likely suffer flanking attacks that will soon take Thorn itself, is possibly the worse thing we could do as an Empire at the moment. And with the disposition of forces, I don't think we could take France right now or for the near future. The quality and quantity just aren't there and would force us to sacrifice other parts of the Empire for the near future.
Sides it's fun, if you don't like it tough luck.
Sides France isn't to be taken, we don't expand without Edicts anymore, because we don't want to win yet.
I repeat, we play this game because it should be great fun, not because we want to win (tho that would be nice to do in 1500).
No need to sigh - you were chrystal clear; apparently I was not. My saying "propose giving up provinces in character" was not a suggestion for what you should do. It was said simply to illustrate why this kind of game leads to people planning new offensives instead of giving up provinces to create defensive walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Well, now you are not the only one getting slightly annoyed. I don't think anyone was being defensive or being in denial; we are discussing your observations in a friendly and open way. The tension between the urge to play your best game and the desire to keep the AI providing a challenge is one that we've openly discussed OOC from the beginning. :shrug:Quote:
That, more than anything, proves my point. People here wanted to put us in a precarious situation to make it more interesting, and by extension, more fun. Now I don't mind that at all but I find it interesting that everyone is crawling out of the woodwork to deny it. Lets at least admit to each other OOC about how we conceptualize playing the game. I applaud the works of some to complicate our in game situation. I am just getting slightly annoyed that everyone is trying to deny it and getting defensive when I am pointing out the obvious.
It's an interesting theory but I've seen little to suggest that Jobst subscribes to Hummel's agenda. Hummel's agenda - like Colonel Kurtz's methods in Apocalpyse Now - was hard to discern at the best of times. And in neither case can the Chancellor's actions be reduced to the promotion of Swabia's interests given the Swabian Duke is currently bemoaning the state of his Household Army.Quote:
This started with people trying to claim that Kaiser's never ever favor other houses and that no thought at all was given to the fact that the current kaiser/chancellor hails from the same house as the previous chancellor. This basically gave one house the ability to enact a political agenda without suffering major long term losses. The first chancellor was able to go and enact his/others agenda while knowing that if he was brought down, then another chancellor with roots from the same house would step into power. Pretty brilliant if you ask me because in game they seem to have gotten away with it. In fact it seems that even out of game no one has really caught on though I suspect a lot of people are keeping quiet about what they know. And it was me posting this theory that basically started this whole line of discussion and debate.
and i never said that the kaiser wouldnt stay above sectarian politics, i said technically they're not in any house anymore. but they probably won't alway recant past loyalties.
Is it a conspiracy theory to claim that RP'ing games have politics? Thats like saying its a conspiracy to claim that football has coaches. Plus that book seems to have little/nothing to do with Michel Foucault who was one of the premier theorizers of power/knowledge. And despite having discussions about handicapping in the past, people seem loathe to do it now which is curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
I never claimed that we should. Its just that strategywise we are in the murky middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
I never claimed that we could or should attempt to achieve optimum game play. Only that we don't. And that simple statement has led to much defensivness among some of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
I brought up the state of the empire as evidence to back up my theory that some players here are throwing a monkey wrench in the works to spice things up. I should be able to discuss the game OOC with you without being subjected to multiple requests to say it IC which I refuse to do at this time. I have only said what we should do if we wished to pursue actual strategy. I do not wish to pursue optimal strategy because I believe it would shorten the game and make it less fun. It was merely to drive home a point that the state of the empire is on such rocky grounds, it almost seems as if it was done on purpose because everyone here seems far too competent to cause it on accident. If we can not talk about the actual game itself OOC then why have an OOC thread? Its basically the equivalent of telling LARP'ers that they can't go out to coffee after the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by OverKnight
I joined because I thought it would be fun. And it is still fun. Its just that some of this discussion is not fun. And I completely agree with how you guys are running/playing this game. I am simply analyzing how all of you play this game and offering my analysis and opinion. I have never once actually complained. If you disagree with my analysis, then lets have a spirited healthy discussion on the mechanics of the game we play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
I never said you shouldn't take your character into Russia. I think it will make for a great story. I just hope your character doesn't die in the process. I'm just saying that from a purely strategic point of view it is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
-----------------------
*edit to include the comments that were made while I was writing this*
Well I will see your slightly annoyed and raise you my good sir to "slightly more than slightly annoyed". Without cutting and pasting what everyone has posted for the past day or two, I will only direct you to look at Stig's post and tell me how he is being friendly and open.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Unless it is the player/players themselves that want this due to the increased interest and danger. I never claimed people are doing things in game solely for their character's agenda. I think some people are doing things in game for their own player's agenda. Which is fine by me. I just never expected so many people to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Thats technically true. But the way you dropped the comment as an aside when I made my comment led me to believe you were trying to suggest that the Kaiser was always apolitical.Quote:
Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921
my god, after FH's chancellorship this feels like the game has ground to a halt. And as for the f'inanacail crisis' we are having, IIRC at the end of FH's chancellorship we had a net income north of 45k.
Well we do have money for the moment. But, at the rate of expenditure on military units, lack of a clear economic strategy, and the imminent loss of territory, I predict we will hit the red sometime soon unless we change course. Which is fine with me OOC since it will probably be more fun to experience actual danger in game.
hit the red with 45k net income? i dont think so senor.
Hopefully I'm wrong. Isn't the first and won't be the last. Its just my best guess based on our current situation combined with factoring in all the expanding some people want to do.
----------------
*edit*
Also, what exactly is a "senor"?
I believe it is spanish for sir, only it's missing some accents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
yeah, it needs a ~ on the n but i didnt feel like doing that. i like to say senor every now and then for mister. big deal lol
I think you should look at the other side of things. You are offering your opinions on the game's mechanics and state that's been agreed by the other players through consensus, and when others go through the trouble of explaining why the game is at its present stage, you say that is being defensive? From what I read, I find that you are the one being defensive about your opinions. It is like only you can defend you opinions and anyone else countering them is defensive.
What OK is saying about bring stuff out into the IC is that those stuff you are bring out here, like indefensible borders and not enough revenue are IC stuff that can be used to develope the IC storyline and your avatar's character even more.
About the Teutonic Crusade, that is another IC/OOC decision to weaken the human players. It was suggested by Stig and undertaken by his avatar, he has no problem leading his avatar deep into Russian territories without possibility of reinforcement or retreat, the rest of the players agreed to let him do it. Strategically, this is probably similar to a blitz, striking the enemies rear to disorient him and force him to be on the defensive, Karkov operation of WW2 ring a bell? Or the fail attempt at the Battle of the Bulge.
Just my 2cts, I am not a player, just a participant in the OOC thread.
I never meant that everyone was being defensive. But, I have percieved some of the replies to be defensive and dismissive. As for me bringing up things other have agreed to, how am I to know they agreed to it? I tried to read up as much as possible but there is a limit because alot happens over the PM system. If they do not want new players asking basic questions about things that aren't posted, then they should not accept new players. As for myself being defensive, I have tried not to be. It started with me offering opinions. I perceived some of those opinions to be dismissed out of hand by some on here so I reiterated in order to be clear. Then I tried to rebut point for point where I disagreed with others. I started getting impatient because I felt that I was having to bring up the same points over and over. Its almost as if some people only read the last post you have posted and not the ones before. There are many on here who have disagreed with me but have been quite nice and polite about it. Others have come off combative, defensive, and dismissive.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
Again these things were never meant to be brought up IC. They were meant to be evidence to support my point. And I have felt that in some cases, telling me to bring things up IC was a way of dismissing what I was saying. Are we even allowed to talk about the game OOC? Do we always have to be IC?Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
Again I have no problem with the Teutonic Crusade. I was simply using it to support my claim that poor strategic moves were being implemented on purpose. Storywise, I think its a great idea. On a pure strategic level, it has the makings to be a real cluster!@#$%.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Move along gentlemen, there's nothing to see here...move along now.:book:
"These are not the droids your looking for"Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
"Ahh, these are not the droids we are looking for. Move along now."Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
"You can go about your business"Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
So Privateerkev,
I'm going to call you PK from now on if that's ok.
You've certainly generated some discussion since jumping on board, so welcome and well done for getting the boy's to engage you in debate. :balloon2:
I'd certainly get your points into the IC section rather than hammer them out here.
Roleplaying your point would be an excellent move. Saying you don't want too because of character reasons simply means it would be a greater challenge to do so.