It would probably be good to mention that Ig is a minor. So is EF. Playing innuendo games with them might get you into some trouble. Just a word of warning. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Printable View
It would probably be good to mention that Ig is a minor. So is EF. Playing innuendo games with them might get you into some trouble. Just a word of warning. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
So am I :grin2: For 8 months more.
Hey guys, just as a quick heads up, Zim's computer managed to contract some sort of virus from the .org (he thinks) and is having to be reformatted. After some initial difficulties, we think we've got it working now, but it will still be a day or so until he gets Medieval working again.
So just for now, I'll be in charge of Asteri matters and whatnot, so just direct anything for him to me.
:gah:
runs away and hides... never to open his mouth again!
The .org has been working weird for me too. There was some sort of ad that would pop up whenever I went to the homepage. I'll need to do some virus hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
M2TW still works for me, but the computer is running slower. :brood:
Strangely, I'm having the same problem here. I used to be able to run M2TW with medium graphics with 4000+ in siege battles but now it can barely handle siege battles without a drop in fps (field battles are okay though :2thumbsup: ...to an extent). Any suggestions?
Seems like someone was feeling nostalgic...:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
Could not resist printing the 4th installment of Nevoulas back story before OK got round to rolling over to the next term.
Heh also could not resist the shameless plug here in the OOC thread. Thanks for your previous kind words about my stories, I hope to keep all my avatars interesting throughout the epic saga.
Hah! Force of habit actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
Hmm. I've been playing Europa Barbarorum recently and haven't noticed any problems there or with the Org. 'Course, I don't leave the Throne Room much. I wonder what's going on?
I was also having some problems. I actually think the site gets hacked periodically. Not drastically but every now and then it seems you try and access the site and you get taken to a game's site or in this case some other web site related to the org.
*watches tumbleweeds blow past*
I hereby propose we push for an OOC CA that mandates certain requirements of any player who wishes to run for Megas.
a.) They must live in their parent's basement for the length of their term.
b.) They must have a cable modem.
c.) Basement must have a mini-fridge stocked with beer and a freezer stocked with microwavable meals. A microwave must be present to heat previously mentioned meals.
d.) A cot can be set up near the desk but it is preferable if the player can stay up 24/7 so he can more readily answer those last minute panicky IC and OOC pm's.
e.) A "trucker buddy" should be installed under the desk for biological necessities.
f.) There should be absolutely no attempts to "have a life" for the entire duration of the Megas's term. Your life actually belongs to the other players and your entire being should be dedicated to serving their every IC desire.
:clown: <--- added in hope that the current, as well as every future player of the Megas knows I am just kidding.
Actually I think you got the last bit just a tad wrong. The :clown: represents what the Megas must wear for their entire term. Other than that it sounds just like I expected, in fact I'm surprised you are having to post this, I thought it was general knowledge by now.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Whilst there is a temporary lull, I just thought i would ask a few noob questions to the masses.
1) Regarding the Megas... is the megas nominated and seconded much like an edict in the Magneura or is it done separately?
2) What happens when a megas does not follow an edict?
3) Am I right in thinking that if a vassal dies its lands would go straight to the overlord?
4) Can a landowner simply transfer ownership of a province to whatever avatar he/she likes?
1) No, everyone who wants to run present their case and then there is a seperate poll to see who wins.
2)People will lose respect for them and if somone can call an emergency session they could get impeached (removed from office)
3)Yeah I think so
4)I suppose so :laugh4:
1) Nope. Anyone can run for Megas just by declaring that they are a candidate. This is traditionally followed by a 'manifesto' which is essentially the campaign platform you are running on. Also, in the LotR rules, Stators cannot run for Megas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smowz
2) People get annoyed. Anything beyond that requires people to take IC actions, with impeachment being the most effective methods. Of course, you have to be able to call an emergency session to impeach someone, and at the moment that's limited to the Basileus, so OverKnight is pretty much immune. This is an isolated situation, though. In the future, the Basileus will be available to start impeachment proceedings against other players, and eventually other ranks will have the ability to do so as well.
3) Yes, but only if he either doesn't have a will or gives it to the Lord in the will. If he has a will and directs that the province goes to someone else, then the Lord does not get it.
4) Yes.
Like EF said, it is just a majority vote. You run, if you get the majority, you win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smowz
While the rules have to be followed, edicts do not. It is up to the players to provide IC consequences for the Megas who violates edicts.Quote:
2) What happens when a megas does not follow an edict?
If there is no will, the land goes to the vassal's lord. If there is no will and no lord, the land goes to the Emperor.Quote:
3) Am I right in thinking that if a vassal dies its lands would go straight to the overlord?
Absolutely. You can give your province to who ever you want at any time.Quote:
4) Can a landowner simply transfer ownership of a province to whatever avatar he/she likes?
*edit*
nm, TC answered all of this while I was typing.
1/ As EF said, it is just a majority vote on declared candidates...
2/ Only IC consequences and possible impeachment...
3/ Unless bequeathed to another avatar in a will.
4/ In life, yes. There is nothing forbidding giving a settlement to another avatar (thus allowing for advancement and then promoting adavancement of your own rank if the avatar receiving the province is one of your vassals)
in death, only within the limits imposed on wills.
Hey guys, everything is (mostly) working right now, although I have a lot of things to reinstall on my computer. Coupled with RL things this means I may be a bit scarce for a day or so. I should be able to answer IC pms but in the meantime I'll delegate deguerra's character in the SOT thread for in game movement of ships under Asteri control, etc.
Hope to be back full time within a day or so. :bow:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A) Got that covered.
B) Got that covered
C) Got a full fridge, freezer, microwave, and toaster oven
D) I have a full bed which, with a laptop, is my desk and my permanent residence
E) That's none of your business but I have that covered and thensome
F) Life is a tasty cereal to me, and nothing more.
According to your list, I should be declared the Megas immediately.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Need I point out that my character IS a clown?
All Hail Megas Efstratios Monomachos!
Now that I am the Megas, I am issuing a decree: Anna Comnenus must report to my chambers within the next thirty minutes.
I mock your edict, you can't even get her name right.
Its either: Anna Komnenos (as in the game), Anna Komnene or Anna Comnena
Comnenus would apply to her father or her brothers. Unless you think she is a man?
Next time, please to some research before passing an edict. :book:
:clown:
I think you're both wrong. Comnenus is just a Latinization of Greek Κομνηνος, whereas a litteral letter-for-letter transliteration would be Komennos or Komninos. This is the masculine form of the name, Comnenus being Latin and Komnenos being Greek written with Latin letters. The feminine form is Κομνηνη (Komnene/Komnini) in Greek and Comnena in Latin.
Alright guys, I am noticing something weird with the save game.
Every time I load up the new save, I notice that the Antioch garrison has not reduced at all. But if I advance the turns myself, the garrison reduces as normal.
So, does anyone who has been taking the save game have a mod installed that stops besieged garrisons from reducing?
:dizzy2:
Quite possible, I simply used the three names I have seen in most of the studies I've read about her. Most of them use either Comnenus/Comnena or Komnene. I have yet to see Komninos anywhere, although it might be as you say a better literal translation. Personally, I tend to think they are all ok, but stick to Komnenos for simplicity. Anyways, Comnenus doesn't work for a woman, that was my point. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
well given that you say it works normally when you advance the turn, and the only person advancing turns if OK, does that mean it would have to be him?
not trying to assign blame, OK, just trying to figure it out.:sweatdrop:
Darn you for using... logic!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
:clown:
But more seriously, that is a good point. But the save game passes among a few of us. And I don't know if it has to be the person who advances the turn to change the save game in this way.
But my knowledge of mods is quite limited.
Maybe the spelling of Anna Comnenus in the masculine form implies that she's being portrayed by a man.
:clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
AFAIK, there is nothing in the mods that would change the rate at which garrisons reduce. Definitely nothing in the LotR mod. Doesn't vanilla M2TW give at least a turn or two before garrisons start dropping, though? Wouldn't that explain the situation you're seeing?
I started sieging on our 2nd turn. It should be reducing by now. The siege counter is certainly counting down.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Also, when I first advanced through the turns in the beginning of the game, I ended up facing a sally of 546 of the enemy. Now when I advance through the turns, off of the current save game, I end up facing a sally in the 590's. For some reason, the garrison in Antioch is not reducing when the save is passed along to other people. But if I advance the turns myself, it reduces like normal.
I am left totally puzzled. :dizzy2:
apparently LotR doesn't like the Order :clown:
But seriously, I have no idea what could be causing this. As TinCow said, I don't think any mods influence garrison reduction. I'm not even sure it's not hardcoded.
Since we tend to consider the M2TW AI as God, and God loves the Order, then it only makes sense that M2TW loves the Order as well. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by deguerra
The mod has been working on my end. I have not noticed any oddities.
Would a couple people (not PK) with access to the latest save load it up and count the Antioch garrison, I guess by attacking?
We can compare that to PK's number from the latest save. If everyone gets the same number, not much we can do. If just PK's number is higher, it might be his installation. If all three are different, God in the Machine hates us.
I'll look myself when I'm home.
PK, as a test, try saving the game, loading it and then advancing turn. Repeat on each advanced turn and see if garrison reduces. It could be another bug caused by saving-loading.
I just tried it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
I saved it, loaded that save, and then advanced a turn. The garrison went down.
Like I said, when ever I advance the turn myself, the garrison reduces. But every time I have downloaded a save someone else puts up, the garrison is not reduced at all. Even though at this point it should be down at least a couple dozen men.
It's not a huge deal but it just bugs me because I have absolutely no idea why it is doing it. :dizzy2:
From the Megas report thread:
Pssst... the Emperor took it already...Quote:
Originally Posted by Flydude
:clown:
I don't know what you're talking about, the report thread clearly says Scopia and always has.
(At least I named the save as LOTR this time)
Tristan,
Really enjoyed your latest installment of your characters back story. Methodios Tagaris certainly is living up to his chivalrous billing so far, though it seems he wishes to get as far away from the Seljuks as possible is this part of the backstory to come?
Glad you like it... :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smowz
As for the Seljuks, he's much more willing to settle the score with a certain Byzantine general than
to get as far away from the Turks as possible...
You'll soon see where that leads...
Here I am hoping that having moved closer to the Basileos I'll get a little loyalty boost... or else I fear Anastasios will go rebel pretty soon :oops:
That proximity to the FL thing is a bit annoying for the purposes of LotR. I would support changing the mod to remove those traits (both positive and negative) if everyone else did. We could do it via an OOC Amendment at the next session.
Another thing I wish to raise is the spawning of avatars for those who have lost them, such as in battle or natural causes. I reckon we should all wait 5 turns before getting another one, so that there are some consequences for losing one.
You don't think the death of the avatar, the loss of all his traits, the loss of all his provinces and retinue, the loss of all ranks, and the loss of any storyline you had going is enough of a penalty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Character wise, it's actually working quite well for me. Having Makedonios gain "unwatched" traits fits him very well. But I can definitely see why others wouldn't like it. I would certainly vote yes to remove them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
In KotR, you had one avatar assassinated. You then suicided your second. And you took your third and fourth into PvP battles. I must say I'm kind of surprised to see you argue that people should wait before getting replacements. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Well, there would be a lot of traits to check before doing such a move. For example, winning a heroic victory gives you a negative loyalty trait for a short time as well. And then there's the ancillary titles that can modify loyalty too. And there might be more. I'm not all familiar with SS 4. SS 6 seems to have a revamped trait system which makes more sense. But for now, I wouldn't touch the traits too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
So losing your character through no fault of your own would result in a penalty? That's a good way to lose players permanently. Since we have the options to simply respawn RGB, why not use it :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
On the matter of the FL-distance related traits, I think they had depth to our character development though the trait is perhaps acquired a bit too fast (perhaps modding the distance rather than removing the traits...) Simply being two provinces away from the FL shouldn't make you "Unwatched" but being on the other side of the sea surely does...
As for RGB-spawn waiting period, I'm fully against it... I will happily take any risk necessary with my avatar and even place him at danger voluntarily to afford him a "good" death but that is done knowing that I will soon have another one to cherish...
Sorry for the double post...
Just to let you know that I edited the battle report for Durazzo mixing the story with the pics for a better understanding...
Over and out...
I'm against it as well, for the above reasons, but also since I have a nasty habit of using my general as a normal cavalry unit, and I also profess what seems to be horrible luck in keeping them alive regardless.
The fact is that is that it removes the consequences of an avatar's death. Supposing a house declares civil war on the Basileos. Two armies clash outside of Constantinople, and the loyalist avatar is killed and his army is defeated. However, as the rebel army had already marched from near Thessalonica, it runs out of movement points right near the city. So the next turn, instead of fighting a leaderless garrison, a new avatar would have been spawned in the city and you'd have to either fight a PvP or a multiplayer battle.
But that's like saying the next Avatar is subject to following in the lasts footsteps. I would think that even though it's possible that a player may want to continue the fight, it's also possible he may want to switch sides, or be a neutral party. It's not right to penalize a player for that, unless it is obvious he is abusing it. So maybe a penalty after the second or third time within the span of 20 years would be sufficient.
You seem to be thinking awfully hard about civil wars... :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
I'm sure TC would make sure nothing that "gamey" would happen. I think dying has plenty of consequences. Forcing players to wait for an arbitrary amount of turns could lead to bad feelings OOC.
Well, if I become Basileus I'll need to. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Or you could just be a good Basileus that keeps us all happy. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Or you could just be a mean Basileus that keeps us all scared silly. :hide:
Or somewhere in between. :yes:
The choices are endless. :2thumbsup:
I think in general terms we shouldn't have a penalty for dying. This does not mean that we can't make exceptions once extreme situations, like the one you mentioned arise.
That way is better than penalyzing everyone. I mean even if you can rejoin instantaneously I think there will be plenty of cases where Players choose for themselves to take a short break. I always found it hard to bounce right back with a new avatar, it usually takes me some time to adapt and create a new character concept.
If you really wanted to make a rule about it, I would be open for an OOC Amendment that makes you wait a small amount of turns if an avatar dies in a Civil War. But then I never liked rules that just existed to prevent OOC character flaws to spill into the game! :beam:
Perhaps we could make it that in a civil war your new avatar cannot spawn in the same province as your previous one was killed in?
Although I see where you're coming from, Igno, I must admit that I can already see an IC justification to having an avatar respawn in the same province as the old one died (like the captain of the bodyguard rallying the men to fight for the memory of their lost commander...)
I agree that may appear a bit gamey to have defeated a player's avatar only to see him respawn in the next turn and to have to fight him anew but we shouldn't completely close the door on that... It could really make for interesting stories... Which I think is the whole point behind this game, no ?
We managed to survive without a rule in KotR. The GM's are around for a reason and it is these types of issues that I believe should be handled by them. A rule is not necessary in order to manage this IMO.
TC is more than capable in dealing with any "issues" if they occur. Igno's example of an avatar dying and the next one taken simply continuing the fight would be a classic example of an overrule by TC.
It has to be plausible IC for me to accept this type of behaviour is ok.
I think that example is easily plausible IC, like Tristan explained. I remember when someone wrote a battle report in which the General died and he wrote about a captain taking over and turning it into a victory, he got a MotH at the end. Also it's gonna be rare that just the general is killed in a battle, the player would still lose their army and a settlement if it was a siege. It hardly unbalances anything.
Besides surely it is more fun to have a PvP battle than to fight the AI...
That was actually me. I was new to the game and I didn't know that captain led armies had to autoresolve their battles, so I fought this one out. The captain got killed, but I won the battle, and then got a Man of the Hour, which turned out to be the future Kaiser Jobst von Salza. Ah, the twists a game can take...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite Ferret
I thought it was Econ playing Xdeathfire's (Scherer's) last battle. Maybe it's happened more than once...
The rules give the battle 'umpire' carte blanche on determining how PvP battles are run. If a player re-spawn seems like it will have unfair and unrealistic consequences for a PvP battle, the umpire can do whatever he wants to keep it balanced.
I am very amused that Ignoramus is worried about civil wars. Ig basically pushed the envelope in KotR for what players could do. We had to come up with whole new mechanics to allow for rebellions and civil wars. Their official incorporation in this game is largely because of the ground-breaking work that Ig did in the last game.
And now Ig is going to be the one in charge of everything and he is the one that has to worry about rebellions.
To me, this is poetic... :laugh4:
:clown:
Perhaps things have started to look a bit different "up there" now that Igno IS "up there". :beam:
I'm tempted to pull a "Hapsburg" on him. Apionnas can be briefly possessed by Arnold.
Ok, I'll be celebrating midsummer until Sunday, see you back then.
With the siege dragging on I think the Order can manage for a turn or two :laugh4:
I dunno, the counting of the stones in the walls of Antioch might not be possible without you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan
:clown:
Hurray! Finally managed to get the :daisy: working. Yesterday, I spent a frustrating night, fighting that same stupid battle twice, almost to the end and then... screen freezed, had to reboot. With everything on the lowest settings today, the thing worked. Still a bit laggy at times, but it allowed me to finish the battle. I'm just hoping that my pc can handle the larger battles/sieges.
And I took my first settlement in this game :jumping: Amazing how you can be excited about a battle that you're usually tempted to just autoresolve in sp and certainly if your pc crashes during the first attempt. But I didn't want to risk poor Savvas' life with an autoresolve...
EDIT: it's been a while since I played M2TW, but I thought it took an awful long time to smash the gates with a battering ram. Guess it has something to do with the SS mod?
I'm pretty sure we can't autoresolve if the players are available to fight the battle.
That being said, I've played SS enough now to realize that the autoresolve God's are not nearly as kind as they are in vanilla. Your odds seem much better fighting the battle yourself now. Where in vanilla, I always auto-resolve assaults in SP games because I'll only lose a couple guys. And there comes a point where it gets tedious doing a full-on assault to take a city that is held by a garrison consisting of only a bodyguard unit.
And yeah it's SS that makes knocking down gates/walls so slow.
I've been away from my desk for several days, and m'lord Michail Arianitis has essentially left me in charge of the direction of our house.
Given the expansion of the other houses, it seems prudent that my next moves be either Bari or Durazzo.
My question is, has any other house or renegade Tristan claimed Bari or Durazzo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
You do realize that your currently sitting in Durazzo don't you?
:clown:
We can't autoresolve if there are people available to fight it and they want to fight it. If everyone in the stack can't fight the battle or wants to autoresolve it, an auto is perfectly legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Ah, nevermind then.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
But my second point still stands. Auto-resolving assaults is no longer the sure thing it is in vanilla. I've been playing Templars on SP for fun (NN's AAR inspired me), and it is far easier to actually fight the assault, than auto-resolving it. :yes:
ok, so I am sitting in Durazzo... I think I meant to say Zagreb.
It's those z's... messing with my brain.
Shhh :quiet: ... Don't say it but I think I'm in sight of Zagreb... Don't make loud noises with your honking clown nose or they'll hear you and we're done... :clown:
And btw, your lord Michail is now a Comes with the possession of Durazzo (renamed Dyrrakhion...), courtesy of the Tagaris police crew (and our Basileos, ofc)
Since it's not a village, what are you going to do? Knock on the door? :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan de Castelreng
he could beseige it and force a sally after several turns. If this is the case, Tristan, I volunteer to join you in defense of your great general, and that of the empire.
Just don't get me killed...
Why do I picture a scene out of the Holy Grail here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I can see it now. The Zagrebians (is that a word?) on their wall taunting Methodios and Efstratios.
:clown:
In such a case, i will be forced to construct a giant wooden rabbit, and roll it up to the gates of Zagreb.
Then, Gallahad, Lancelot, and I leap out of the rabbit, taking the Zig-Zagreboniostononians completely by surprise, not only by surprise, but totally unarmed!
Who leaps out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Lancelot, Gallahad and I... Leap... out of the rabbit... oh dear.
Suppose we built a large wooden badger?
Run away!Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy