OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OK

The offer for the Guild is still up.

---

My guess is that is up to the Megas since it costs money. He can certainly ask Cecil his opinion on it. And Cecil can always destroy it if he doesn't want it. But I don't know if Senators can approve of Guilds themselves. No mention of Guilds is in the rules. Not for lack of trying on my part but the issue always died when I brought it up.

[old man voice]In my day going on Crusade meant you walked 40 years across all of Europe, Anatolia and the Levant. We didn't have any ships, we considered ourselves lucky if we had shoes! Foot ships we called them! And it wasn't a proper Crusade unless you defeated three Jihad armies before you got to where you were going! And it was uphill all the time! Bah! Crusaders today, a bunch of pansies the lot of you![/old man voice]

Settle down, old man Otto.

In my day, you were simply born in the Levant and you were allowed to join a Crusade to the province next door simply because you happened to be around at the time.

:laugh4:

[old man voice]And in my day if a Religious Leader go too uppity, putting on airs, ordering people around and such, we didn't ban him from the Diet! No, we drowned him in raw sewage or hacked him to pieces! A good old vetoing, that's what we called it![/old man voice]

And in my day, if an Emperor got too uppity, we simply bribed bandits to kill him while he traveled. None of this "civil war" mumbo-jumbo.

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

[old man voice]And in my day if a Religious Leader go too uppity, putting on airs, ordering people around and such, we didn't ban him from the Diet! No, we drowned him in raw sewage or hacked him to pieces! A good old vetoing, that's what we called it![/old man voice]

---

Hey, you're welcome to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

My guess is that is up to the Megas since it costs money. He can certainly ask Cecil his opinion on it. And Cecil can always destroy it if he doesn't want it. But I don't know if Senators can approve of Guilds themselves. No mention of Guilds is in the rules. Not for lack of trying on my part but the issue always died when I brought it up.

---

You're right on all counts. Control over guilds was always rejected by the majority when it was brought up. Since the rules do not cover it, it is under the Megas' jurisdiction. If Cecil doesn't want the guild but Igno builds it anyway, he can just knock it down. I think that's unlikely to happen, though, given how tight the budget is lately.

I think Cecil needs to replay his turn then, unless he has already contacted Ignormous.

Only if Igno protests, which I doubt he will. However...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil XIX

moved Armatos to block the Jihadists.

---

This bit annoys me greatly. This seems to me to be an intentional exploitation of the AI. The whole reason that the Templar was moved in the first place was because the AI was too stupid to attack it and insisted on taking the long way around Anatolia. This is also a method that even circumvents my own methods of controlling the game, since the blatantly obvious thing for the Jihad armies to do is to squash the tiny army in their path and keep marching. However, I cannot start a battle when controlling the AI because it would have to be autoresolved, something which is very unfair to anyone controlling an avatar in the victimized stack.

However, the Jihad is part of the Crusade Event and therefore I can do what I want to make sure it is implemented properly. I am therefore declaring my intention to park those armies directly in Armatos' face next turn. If he does not move out of the way, I will then have the AI attack with both stacks and let autoresolve determine his fate. I will do the same for anyone else who blocks the Jihad armies but does not attack them. If you want to stop these things, you need to fight them. Otherwise, clear out of the way. Doing otherwise is exploiting the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

This bit annoys me greatly. This seems to me to be an intentional exploitation of the AI. The whole reason that the Templar was moved in the first place was because the AI was too stupid to attack it and insisted on taking the long way around Anatolia. This is also a method that even circumvents my own methods of controlling the game, since the blatantly obvious thing for the Jihad armies to do is to squash the tiny army in their path and keep marching. However, I cannot start a battle when controlling the AI because it would have to be autoresolved, something which is very unfair to anyone controlling an avatar in the victimized stack.

However, the Jihad is part of the Crusade Event and therefore I can do what I want to make sure it is implemented properly. I am therefore declaring my intention to park those armies directly in Armatos' face next turn. If he does not move out of the way, I will then have the AI attack with both stacks and let autoresolve determine his fate. I will do the same for anyone else who blocks the Jihad armies but does not attack them. If you want to stop these things, you need to fight them. Otherwise, clear out of the way. Doing otherwise is exploiting the AI.

---

:applause:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

This bit annoys me greatly. This seems to me to be an intentional exploitation of the AI. The whole reason that the Templar was moved in the first place was because the AI was too stupid to attack it and insisted on taking the long way around Anatolia. This is also a method that even circumvents my own methods of controlling the game, since the blatantly obvious thing for the Jihad armies to do is to squash the tiny army in their path and keep marching. However, I cannot start a battle when controlling the AI because it would have to be autoresolved, something which is very unfair to anyone controlling an avatar in the victimized stack.

However, the Jihad is part of the Crusade Event and therefore I can do what I want to make sure it is implemented properly. I am therefore declaring my intention to park those armies directly in Armatos' face next turn. If he does not move out of the way, I will then have the AI attack with both stacks and let autoresolve determine his fate. I will do the same for anyone else who blocks the Jihad armies but does not attack them. If you want to stop these things, you need to fight them. Otherwise, clear out of the way. Doing otherwise is exploiting the AI.

---

We only did that because the Germans are blocking the river crossing. Which means Mak can't get to Armatos this turn. So, Armatos can either fight both stacks by himself right now, or stall the Jihad for one turn.

It wasn't meant to exploit anything and it certainly wasn't meant to annoy you. :no:

Next turn, the Germans should move south. Then the full weight of the Order will come down on those two stacks. We'll still be outnumbered pretty bad.

I repeat, this was not done to cause the Jihad to take the long way around.

I wish next time people would actually ask us why we did things before jumping to conclusions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

We only did that because the Germans are blocking the river crossing. Which means Mak can't get to Armatos this turn. So, Armatos can either fight both stacks by himself right now, or stall the Jihad for one turn.

---

That is exactly what I am complaining about. It seems I jumped to the exact right conclusion. You did it because you knew that the stacks would be stopped and would not attack Armatos. If I told you that they would just obliterate him and keep moving, you wouldn't have done it. This is exploiting the strategic AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

That is exactly what I am complaining about. It seems I jumped to the exact right conclusion. You did it because you knew that the stacks would be stopped and would not attack Armatos. If I told you that they would just obliterate him and keep moving, you wouldn't have done it. This is exploiting the strategic AI.

---

Actually I thought they would attack him and he would just retreat. We wanted to catch them in a pincer. We don't have a lot of resources.

This turn, Armatos has 3 options.

a.) Fight 2 stacks by himself. He has 6 units. I have 2 that have the MP to get to him. So, a total of 9 versus 2 almost full stacks in daylight. I asked him if he wanted to do it and he said no. I fully support him in this.

b.) Run to the pass. If the AI attacked, he'd back off. Next turn his army would be on one side, mine on the other. We'd hit them with a pincer move.

c.) Back off and just let the Jihad run into Anatolia. With their MP, we couldn't catch them. This means we'd effectively be left out of the Jihad event.

If you want us to do C, just say so. Because we are not doing A. And you don't like us doing B.

Please do not assume what I know or what I think. Because, in this case, you assumed wrong. Next time, just ask. :yes:

If you want me to attack him and autoresolve (which is what you are suggesting with B) then I will do so. I guarantee you will not like the result. The units in the armies are not high quality, but in an autoresolve that won't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

If you want me to attack him and autoresolve (which is what you are suggesting with B) then I will do so. I guarantee you will not like the result. The units in the armies are not high quality, but in an autoresolve that won't matter.

---

No that is not what I was suggesting. (what happened to just asking what I think?)

I thought the AI would attack him since we're at war. Therefore, it would pop up as a defensive battle and he'd have the choice to fight it or retreat.

If I am wrong about this, then it is because I am wrong about what the AI would do. It is not a case of me trying to exploit the AI.

Before you accuse me, please try to find out my motive for doing things. Not everything we do is sinister...

This was an innocent move made from innocent assumptions. :yes:

You do realize that due to the higher Crusade movement rate (which you yourself noted) and the very short retreat distance, any retreat in such a situation would be followed up by a second attack from which there could be no retreat. I think it is reasonable to expect that people with as much M2TW experience as most KotR veterans have would know this. It seems to me that in such a situation, it would be highly unusual for a person to expect an army to survive unless they thought that the attack wouldn't happen in the first place. This also appears to have been a group decision. Are you telling me that no one even thought about this possibility, nor did any of them hit end turn to see what would happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

You do realize that due to the higher Crusade movement rate (which you yourself noted) and the very short retreat distance, any retreat in such a situation would be followed up by a second attack from which there could be no retreat. I think it is reasonable to expect that people with as much M2TW experience as most KotR veterans have would know this. It seems to me that in such a situation, it would be highly unusual for a person to expect an army to survive unless they thought that the attack wouldn't happen in the first place. This also appears to have been a group decision. Are you telling me that no one even thought about this possibility, nor did any of them hit end turn to see what would happen?

---

The retreat would have sent Armatos out of the Jihad's way. So I assumed they'd walk past him.

Under the crappy circumstances of this turn, we didn't know what else to do.

So yes, between Cecil and I, neither of us thought of the Jihad either obliterating Armatos or taking the long way around. I thought they only did that for the Templar because they are neutral.

I do not appreciate how I am being talked to. I had no sinister intent. If you have a problem, send a PM.

*edit*

As for hitting "end turn," I stopped playing ahead after it generated such a negative reaction in the beginning of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Are you telling me that no one even thought about this possibility, nor did any of them hit end turn to see what would happen?

---

As far as I am aware, that is exactly what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

You do realize that due to the higher Crusade movement rate (which you yourself noted) and the very short retreat distance, any retreat in such a situation would be followed up by a second attack from which there could be no retreat.

---

~:eek: :wall:

If you guys had discussed this on the AHEM board I could've explained the way it would work to you. Personally I didn't imagine the Order would take those legions of peasants and go after the jihad armies anyway. :laugh4:

I hate to say it but the way things stand now if the AI attacks (retreat, attacks again) the battle should have to be fought.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramses II CP

If you guys had discussed this on the AHEM board I could've explained the way it would work to you. Personally I didn't imagine the Order would take those legions of peasants and go after the jihad armies anyway. :laugh4:

I hate to say it but the way things stand now if the AI attacks (retreat, attacks again) the battle should have to be fought.

:egypt:

---

I didn't think about the Jihad hitting Cecil twice in a turn. :embarassed:

I thought they would hit, Cecil would fight/retreat, and then they'd walk by. And we could then say IC that we tried. With the Germans sitting on a key river crossing, we had few options. Most of Mak's army don't have the MP to reach the Jihad this turn because of the blocked crossing.

For IC reasons, I didn't want us to just stand aside and let those Jihad armies through without at least trying something. We'd get barbecued at the next Senate session for doing nothing.

That's why we did what we did. I didn't think about exploiting the AI. Though in my defense, I have now proved that the AI is so stupid, that it can be exploited completely by accident. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

I didn't think about exploiting the AI.

---

Then I take you at your word and apologize if you were offended by my words. I will proceed exactly as I outlined in my initial post. I have to take control of Egypt this turn anyway, so I will park both armies right on top of Armatos and leave them there. If he remains blocking their path on the next AI turn, the battle will be autoresolved (because I cannot start a battle that can be fought by the Byzantine player - if I could, this wouldn't be an issue). As I understand it, this fits in perfectly with your plan anyway, so it shouldn't cause problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Then I take you at your word and apologize if you were offended by my words. I will proceed exactly as I outlined in my initial post. I have to take control of Egypt this turn anyway, so I will park both armies right on top of Armatos and leave them there. If he remains blocking their path on the next AI turn, the battle will be autoresolved (because I cannot start a battle that can be fought by the Byzantine player - if I could, this wouldn't be an issue). As I understand it, this fits in perfectly with your plan anyway, so it shouldn't cause problems.

---

:bow:

Ironically, if I was trying to exploit the AI, I would have really screwed up. Because I was operating off of faulty assumptions on the AI's behavior. :laugh4:

Plus, don't AI controlled Jihad/Crusader armies attack enemy armies in their way? They don't just wander like automatons towards the target do they? :book:

Also, if Cecil was attacked, and lost the battle, wouldn't his army just run to Adana? So the fear of "obliteration" didn't make sense to me. :shrug:

And yeah, what your outlining is very much in line with what we intended. Sounds good to us. :beam:

OOC I knew we were outnumbered and outgunned and we should just step aside. IC however, we couldn't do this. We're playing good brave Crusaders so Armatos and Mak wanted to at least try to make a dent in the evil armies. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Plus, don't AI controlled Jihad/Crusader armies attack enemy armies in their way? They don't just wander like automatons towards the target do they? :book:

---

Actually, yes. :wall: Anyone seen any news on the ETW AI?

For the record, since I had to take control of Egypt myself this turn to prevent them from walking into Russia, the game considered them player controlled and made 3 units desert from one of the armies (AI controlled Crusade/Jihad armies do not suffer desertion). If you aren't up for the battle in the current situation, you can RP it that you've managed to kill off those 3 units through skirmishing. That's at least helping somewhat. I wouldn't worry about the Jihad armies too much, though. Under AI control they are very unlikely to end their movement adjacent to one another, and those stacks are not of good enough quality to be too much of a threat individually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cecil

FRAPS is refusing to take screencaps for some reason. To summarize, it was a close defeat. They lost 48% of their army, we lost 2/3 of ours. (Not counting the ransom) They lost the general in their larger stack, we lost no avatars. (Although Armatos is the only one left in his bodyguard, and Nathanail only has one other guy left in his)

Also, after the battle the enemy Sultan offered to ransom away the soldiers. Since their's no mention of ransoming in the rules, and Armatos is a do-what-you-can-and-damn-the-consequences kind of guy, I accepted that. I hope that's not a problem OOC.

---

Love your work Cecil! :2thumbsup:

That was about as good of an outcome as we could expect.

I can't wait for a battle report. :yes:

I'll be out of town starting now, won't be back until monday morning. I should have sporadic access to the internet though, so hopefully I'll be able to chek what's going on once a day and fight any battles within a 24-hour timeframe.

Quote:

---

The man who was flogged on Efstathios Laskaris' (Ibn-Khaldun) ship the previous year soon recovered from his ordeal and began spreading subversive talk amongst the crew. Most of the men were perfectly content with their commander, but there are always a few troublemakers in any army, and this one was no exception. Soon these men were sowing discontent and discord amongst the fleet. The officers did their best to counter it, and they were aided by a large number of the crew, but a sizable minority soon began to openly express grievances. One morning, this entire group simply refused to emerge from their cabin to work the ship. The remainder of the crew did their best to keep the fleet moving, but the fleet had few hands to spare under normal conditions, and their progress soon slowed to a crawl. As the year ended, little progress had been made and the situation remained in a tense standoff.

---

Well.. was it sabotage or not? It's hard to tell:inquisitive:

No, not sabotage. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Nothing to see here...

TC beat me to it...

Looking at the current save, I'm in a bit of quandry. There's a turk Jihad army a few turns march from Constantinople along the north coast of Anatolia.

Now my normal reaction would be to find a choke point between the capital and the army, offer battle, whittle them down and fall back. However, Crusade AI is a bit. . .um. . .unique and while a normal army might stop to to attack an inferior force at a choke point, I think in this case the Turks would just find another route.

I find the idea of just sitting in the capital a bit unappealing, but I don't want to "exploit the AI". Any suggestions?