M2 HRE Test OOC Thread

Out of Character comments thread for the M2 pbem test. This test will largely determine the validity and ease of opperation for a more decentralised version of a Will of the Senate style pbem for use with Medieval 2, or even other TW pbem games, so questions, comments, and any other player or non-player concerns can be voiced here so we can work out the best possible way to see this through to a full fledged, operable pbem near January.

*****************************FAQ *****************************************

This is the beginning of the Medieval 2: Holy Roman Empire test pbem. This first post will outline current players and rules and will be updated accordingly.

Current Players and Status are as follows.
Lucjan - Chancellor Dietrich Von Saxony, Landless Duke
Econ21 - Otto von Kassel, Duke of Innsbruck
Ignoramus - Cardinel Peter Scherer (Only thing available at the moment, btw, do you have the game yet?)
Tamur - Leopold, Duke of Vienna
Braden - Maximillian Mandorf, Count of Nuremburg


An IC Deliberations thread, OOC thread, Imperial Diet thread and Archives thread will be started as well, and I will maintain the Archives thread.


Rules (A collective work by the current players and a few others, thank you also to Econ21 for taking the time to write up this well organised brief.)


How to play – in brief

Players are either Dukes or Counts (collectively “nobles”). Both will have an in-game character (typically a general) or avatar who will represent them.

A key difference between Dukes and Counts is that Dukes micromanage the movement of their avatar and any troops and settlements they control. For example, if he gets into a battle, the Duke is expected to download the savegame and fight the battle. Counts are suitable for players who cannot or do not want to do that.

Dukes will govern specific settlements – cities or castles. They will decide what buildings and troops to purchase, subject to their own resources. Counts may also do this, with some provisos.

Collectively, the nobles form the Imperial Diet where each has one vote.

Every tenth turn, the Imperial Diet will elect a Chancellor. The Chancellor will be the “reigning player” and execute the orders of the Dukes, as well as control central (“Imperial”) assets such as the capital (Frankfurt), the Imperial castle (Staufen) and the Imperial army.

Every five turns, the Imperial Diet will be in session. When in a session, nobles will vote on “edicts” that mandate the Chancellor to specific action. Crucially, these include authorising declarations of war and the setting of taxes.

Game settings

*MT2TW unmodded (but hopefully patched for the real thing).
*Hard campaigns, very hard battles.
*Large unit size.
*Battle timer on. Show CPU Moves, Manage all Settlements
Standard victory conditions (45 provinces, including Jerusalem).

Hard restrictions on play: * only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.

How to play - detailed rules


1. Logistical matters

1.1. When the Chancellor announces a new turn, he will post the savegame for the start of that turn. He will also post the current financial balance of each Duke.

1.2. During the 48 hours after posting the save, there will be an “orders phase.” During this time, each Duke can give orders for:
(a) troop movements
(b) construction and recruitment in his settlement(s) subject to his current balance.
(c) tax rates
Often they will have no changes to their prior orders. If no orders are received, the Duke’s forces cannot be moved and all their balance is saved. Players are to place any movement orders they have for their army or units in their army in the Ducal Commands thread. Orders should be clear and detailed enough to be understood.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan

Ex 1 - Duke of Staufen - I'm ordering the movement of my Avatar, 2 Mailed Knights, 3 Spear Militias, and 2 Peasant Archers from the Castle of Staufen to march westwards. Their target is the bridge on the river crossing between the Staufen Region and the Metz Region. Next turn, order them to Besiege Metz.

Ex 2 - I want to recruit 1 unit of Mailed Knights and 2 units of peasant militia from the Castle of Staufen.



1.3. The Chancellor will then execute these orders to the best of his abilities (this - and the management of accounts - must be done strictly ooc - no manipulating orders, fiddling the books etc).

1.4. If a Duke’s army gets into a battle, the Chancellor will upload the savegame and PM the Duke. The Duke will have 48 hours from the sending of the PM to play the battle and upload a new save, or the battle will be autoresolved.

1.5. Troop movements – Dukes may only have one army in the field. Reinforcements can be moved in separate stacks, but must not exceed five units. The Chancellor will control his own Ducal army and the Imperial army, both single stacks. Stacks may be merged but unless players are gifting units, the Chancellor must keep track of units. Armies 5 units or less in strength that are being transferred between players count as part of the receiving player's ducal army, draw income from the receiving player's total income, and do not penalise the receiving player while they are en route to the receiving player. Basically, until they reach the Ducal army, they count as part of it income wise, but not physically until they actually join up. This is to avoid contradicting the "1 standing army per player" rule.

1.6. If an army conquers a new settlement, that settlement belongs to the owner of the conquering army - i.e. a Duke or the Empire.

1.7. If there are players wishing to join the game as Dukes who do not have a settlement, any settlement conquered by an Imperial army will be offered to them. Any settlement conquered by a Ducal army may be offered to them at the discretion of the Duke. If such an offer is made, the new Duke owes a debt of gratitude to his patron. If such an offer is not made, other nobles may take a dim view of the conqueror.

1.8. A Duke who has not given orders and has not actively participated, without giving prior notice that they may be temporarily unavailable, can be dispossessed of his lands and relegated to the role of a Count. If they do not give orders for 10 consecutive terms, they may be removed from the game.


1.9. Dukes who are unable to play for a period of time may transfer management of their lands and armies to another Duke (e.g. the Chancellor), acting as their steward. However, the steward, not the absentee Count/Duke, will have authority over their lands and armies and battles led by their Count/Duke’s avatar must be autoresolved.

1.10. This is a cooperative game - Dukes cannot leave the Empire and become autonomous states.


2. Money matters

2.1. Purchases - Dukes, including the Chancellor, can spend up to their current balance in their own settlement(s) on buildings or troops; or they may save the balance. The Chancellor can also spend up to the Imperial balance on Imperial settlements, agents or ships, or may save the balance.

2.2 Only the Chancellor can purchase and move agents or fleets. He may buy them from other Duke’s settlements with Imperial funds, overriding their build orders if necessary.

2.3. Four Dukes will start the game with one settlement and its garrison each. Frankfurt (the capital) and Staufen are Imperial settlements. The leaderless army in the north is the Imperial army. Other players are landless Dukes or Counts until settlements (and, for all but two, avatars) become available for them.

2.4. The starting balance of 6000 florins is to be divided 1000 to each Duke and 2000 to the Imperial treasury. All florins from capturing a settlement are to be evenly divided between the Dukes, with the Empire receiving a share equivalent to two Dukes.

2.5. For Dukes, current balances are equal to previous balances plus net profits from their settlements. Net profits are gross profits minus Imperial taxes. Gross profits are settlement income minus corruption and minus Army support costs.

2.6. Imperial taxes are lump sums set by 5-turn edicts. They start fixed at gross profits at the start of the game. Only the Chancellor can propose a tax edict. If it is rejected by a Reichstag vote, taxes remain fixed at previous levels.

2.7. The Imperial treasury is to pay for the Imperial army, ships, agents and any sums spent on diplomacy. Revenue accrues to the Imperial treasury from Imperial settlements (just as with Dukes, but with zero tax) and from Imperial taxes. Any sums gained from diplomacy, from ransoms, from missions and from conquering settlements accrue to the Empire. Any troops given as rewards for missions also come under Imperial control. .

2.8. Dukes may pay others to recruit troops for them. The price is negotiable, but for troops bought from a castle, should be at least the recruitment price plus 25%. (This is to compensate castles which are poorer, as they have much less opportunity for economic buildings and cannot raise taxes, but have access to the best troops).

2.9. The Chancellor will keep separate track of his personal settlements and troops, and the Imperial settlements and troops. Imperial income goes straight to the Imperial Armies upkeep and straight into Imperial Coffers. The Chancellor cannot touch the Imperial Territory's income or men for his personal usage. Only his own ducal lands can help him maintain his ducal army and his own ducal strength.


3. The Imperial Diet

3.1. The Imperial Diet will meet in session every 5 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each session lasts 3 days.

3.2. At each session, nobles can propose edicts. These require one seconder to be put to the vote.

3.3. Edicts can cover the use of the Imperial army, budgets, fleets, agents and diplomacy. They can also cover the allocation of Imperial settlements (e.g. to landless Dukes) and the coordination of military campaigns (e.g. instructing Duke X to help the Imperial Army). Edicts can transfer Imperial assets to individual Dukes ("privatisation" or rebating surplus tax revenue etc) However, they cannot transfer resources from individual Dukes to Imperial control (no expropriation) except via the setting of taxes. Edicts cannot directly mandate the movement of Ducal armies or spending of Ducal budgets. They could conceivably try to do this - e.g. asking a Duke to help out somewhere. But Dukes can always defy the wishes of the Reichstag on the movement of their armies or spending of their budgets. Dukes would do so at their peril. Dukes cannot defy the taxman, however, and if unhappy with an uncooperative Duke, the Imperial Diet could impose punitive taxes.

3.4. Any declaration of war must be authorised by an Imperial edict. The Chancellor or any Duke is empowered to declare war on a non-allied army entering its lands.

*3.5. The rules of the game can be changed by a Noble Charter Amendments (2/3 majority required) except those marked with a *.

3.6. Tied edicts fail. If contradictory edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.

3.7. Edicts can only last for 5 turns.

3.8. Every 10 turns (or on the death or impeachment of the Chancellor), there is an election for the post of Chancellor. One noble one vote. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age). Voting is open for 2 days.

*3.9. The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a 2/3 majority of the Imperial Diet.

*3.10. The Imperial Diet is presided over by the character controlling the Emperor. His rulings are final. The Prince can preside in the absence of the Emperor. The Emperor can call an emergency session of the Imperial Diet - freeze the game - at will. The Emperor can also resolve conflicts between players - for example, in a dispute over a division of the spoils - by decree. Although the Emperor will be a Duke, he will adjudicate ooc in an impartial manner. If he is personally involved in a dispute, he will delegate judgement to the Prince if the Prince is not party to a dispute.


4. Counts

4.1. Counts are suitable for players who would like to participate either do not have the game or do not want download savegames etc.

4.2. Counts have full voting rights in the Imperial Diet and are expected to make most of their contribution there. They should focus on debate and policymaking - since they do not download savegames, they should not get too involved in the minutae of orders etc.

4.3. However, a Count may be given a settlement by a Duke, who becomes the Count’s patron. The patron remains in formal control of the settlement. (He is the only one downloading the savegame and is best informed.) However, the Duke should try to accommodate the Count’s wishes. In return, the Count is expected to vote in accordance with the Duke’s wishes, unless given a free vote. The Count may always renounce his inheritance and seek a new patron if unsatisfied with the relationship; and the Duke may seek a new Count to run their settlement.

4.4. In addition, a Count may be given a settlement by the Empire although preference will be given to landless Dukes (players who will fight battles). The Chancellor (the office, not the man) then acts as the Duke’s patron. He has formal control of the settlement, but the Count can vote freely.

4.5. The movement of the Count’s avatar is decided by the Count’s patron or, if he has no patron, by the Chancellor. The Count may petition to be moved in a certain way, but lacking access to a savegame, this is neither expected nor binding. If frustrated, Counts may show their displeasure by voting or other political actions.

4.6. A Count can always become a Duke (if the player wants to start playing battles etc). A Duke can always become a Count (if the player has to be away for a while). But if the latter change is to be temporary, the Duke must identify another Duke to be steward of their lands.

4.7. A Count is normally given a general as an avatar. However, they could instead take on an agent (they can be “honorary Counts” sort of like the Bishops who sit in the UK House of Lords). I advise against players taking on roles of merchants, spies and assassins, they're all lost far too easily. However, I see no issues with a priestly, diplomatic or princess avatar. A Priestly avatar may actually be highly interesting if by chance the player actually finds himself sitting on the Papal throne.


5. Inter-character relations

5.1. Players are expected to role-play their avatars - act according to their stats and traits. For example, loyal generals should cooperate with the Consul. Chivalrous generals should cooperate with other nobles and be merciful with enemies (the player fighting the battle gets to decide what to do with prisoners, but any ransoms go to the Imperial treasury). Generals with high dread may be less amenable with other nobles and should be merciless with enemies. Pious generals should build religious buildings and agitate to go on crusades.

5.2. In the mid-term session of the Imperial Diet (only), the Chancellor receives bonus votes equal to half the Emperor’s authority, rounded up. This is to help them see through their agenda.

5.3. Nobles may enter binding contracts with each other. These should be posted in the Noble commands thread and agreed to by all sides. The Chancellor must enforce these contracts and there can be no reneging. Possible contracts include but are not limited to trades (e.g. men for florins) and loans (with a mutually agreed rate of interest and duration).

5.4. When a Duke dies, he will simply choose a spare avatar as an heir and continue to play with that land. If there is no spare avatar, the Chancellor will manage the Dukedom as a separate entity until one becomes available.

5.5. Ducal armies may work together to take a province. It is up to player to allow the borrowing of their armies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Example 1 - Metz is heavily fortified by the French, the Duke of Staufen thinks with some help from Innsbruck he can take Metz. The Duke of Innsbruck agrees to lend the Duke of Staufen an additional 10 units (which still operate under Innsbruck's income, as the troops are not loan, not sale) This boosts Staufen's army significantly and the Duke of Staufen then controls these units until Metz falls, at which time they return to the Duke of Innsbruck's control, and the Duke of Staufen-Metz gives the Duke of Innsbruck whatever it was he wanted in exchange for the army loan, lets say the agreement was the first 3 turns worth of income from Metz go to Innsbruck in exchange for the army loan.

Example 2 - The Duke of Nuremburg and the Duke of Prague both have a ducal army in Stettin, both have just taken out equally sized Danish armies. Both are poised to besiege Stettin. This is a dilemma that is up to the two dukes to work out between each other. Or the Emperor may step in and use his power of decree to say that no matter who takes Stettin, Stettin will become Imperial Territory until the next edict session, at which point the conflict will be resolved in a vote.


5.6. When offered a guild, the Chancellor can use his discretion over whether to accept (I don't think we can save at this point). Dukes may specify in advance which guilds they would or would not want accepted - the Chancellor should honour those wishes, but these instructions must be clearly posted as standing orders.

5.7. Dukes cannot buy, borrow or receive troops from Imperial settlements; they cannot enter contracts with the Chancellor to borrow or gift money from Imperial assets etc. Imperial assets are strictly ringfenced for Imperial use (exception: edicts can transfer Imperial assets; this rule 5.7 is about private trades not extending to include Imperial settlements; it is not to limit edicts). But this is asymmetric - Dukes can gift or lend the Empire troops or money (e.g. in a crisis). They cannot receive payment or interest for such actions though (again a specific edict might include a quid pro quo and that would allowed; this is about private trades).

Just a holding post to say I am going to give this game some attention this evening - when the family are all in bed. Psychologically, it feels like I need to think a lot about this, as its a new campaign, although I suspect my Duke's decisions are rather simple.

Sounds good. I was wondering, I think we should try (whenever possible) to allow the Imperial Army (with no general) to take care of rebels and autoresolve the battles. That way we have a higher chance of getting some "Man of the Hour"s and upping our number of generals so we aren't so thin-stretched on potential avatars as we are now.

The army/autoresolve plan sounds fine with me for now. I think once we get a few extra avatars that these should be battlemap-fought, though, since it's always exciting to read the battle reports.

One question: I'm confused on the separation between the Deliberations thread and the Imperial Diet thread. When I posted last night in both, I had assumed that the Deliberations thread was for local matters or Duke-to-Duke (or Count) agreements, while the Imperial Diet thread was more for the direction of the Empire (including use of the imperial army, etc).

Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks!

Consider the Imperial Diet the same thing as a "Motions Thread" from the WotS. And the Deliberations thread is for everything else. Err..that is, unless I myself misunderstood econ's intentions. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

Consider the Imperial Diet the same thing as a "Motions Thread" from the WotS. And the Deliberations thread is for everything else. Err..that is, unless I myself misunderstood econ's intentions. :sweatdrop:

---

Um, well this is the kind of thing we are going to iron out through this trial. I've renamed the two threads so one is for "Orders" and the other for "Deliberations".

We need a thread to put in our individual orders each turn, and the Chancellor should also post our starting balances in that thread too. There is no real counterpart to this in the WoS. I suggest we keep it "clean" of as much other discussion as possible, so it is easy for the Chancellor to understand what Dukes are ordering be done. Ideally, it's little more than a list of orders - rather like Tamur's first post in it.

The deliberations thread, by contrast, is where we will debate strategy, politics and propose motions. This is just our old friend from WoS and should cover most public in character discussion.

On avatars, we don't seem to be using the King and Prince. For some reason, I assumed Lucjan would be King Heinrich (and as such also Duke of Bologna); and that Dietrich and the Prince would be landless Counts. But if we use their avatars, we have room for Ignoramus (and even one other?).

Ignoramus could take either of them, I guess a misinterpretation on my part led me to believe the emperor and prince would be unclaimed avatars.

A couple of works on taxes etc - I had envisaged they would be fixed for 5 turns at the initial levels, but it's not important. If Lucjan wants to propose changing them, that's fine.

On getting the numbers to add up, I suggest we just treat the Imperium as a residual. That's to say - let's work out each Duke's budgets in detail and the Imperium gets what is left. There's some funny stuff going on with "wages" that I don't understand (check the Citadel for my plea for enlightenment). Plus, I have a feeling that the budgets we see may be "projections" for next turn and may not exactly add up to what actually happens.

When it comes to each Duchy, we are starting with a balance of 1000 each. That's the most we can spend this turn. The Imperium can spend the residual 2000.

Lucjan should keep a record of this spending (e).

At the beginning of next turn, Lucjan should make a note of each non-Imperial settlements:

a) income
b) corruption
c) army upkeep (inc. gen's bodyguard)
d) Imperial taxes

(a)-(b)-(c)-(d)-(e) = (f) ie change to balance.

These calculations should be done before doing anything[1] - e.g. changing local taxes.

So next turn each Duke will be allowed to spend [1000 + (f)], their new balance.

The Imperium will get to spend the entire treasury for that turn minus the sum of each Dukes' balances, which must be set aside for them.

On merchants, I had proposed the Imperium pay for them. But I suspect if their benefits accrue to a specific settlement. Hence, I provisionally suggest that either the Imperium or a Duke can pay for them. If the latter, the Duke will control where they go (and have to check he's benefiting - not some other settlement). They have 0 upkeep, so that is one headache less. Let's keep other agents on the Imperium's books.

[1]The one thing that might mess things up is guild offers as these must be accepted or declined before you can do anything else that turn.

I suggest that these be turned down unless the Duke has stated a contingency that they be accepted.

If they are accepted they are added to last turn's expenditure (e). I think there probably should be a proviso that allows the Duchy to go into debt if they can't pay for the guild. Really good guilds are too good to turn down.

Ok, here's my thoughts.

I'll work out the initial financial craziness and find out how this is actually going to work out by playing a few turns in on my own game.

On guild houses, I think the choice of the guild type that should be allowed to be constructed should be left up to the duke, so they should outline prior to their settlement reaching minor city status what guilds would be acceptable to them. But the cost for guild houses specifically should come from the Imperial coffers, and payed back later by the duke in increments, because there's no real telling when the preferred guild house will pop up, and if the duke can't pay for it right then and there he's screwed for who knows how long on the guild house he wanted.

Two other things I noticed.

1 - Not sure I'm a fan of the chancellor being able to override a duke's build orders in order to make ships or agents...
2 - I know I initially pushed for large unit size, mostly because I was concerned about the 40 strong size of cavalry units being too powerful in comparison to the meager 75 spears. (I hadn't notice that the 40:75 and 60:112 are actually comparable ratios.)
But due to wanting to open the game up to people who might not be able to handle the large unit settings, and that the game has issues with unit movement inside cities now the way it is, I think it may actually be better to go with Econ's initial inclination of normal unit size settings. To my knowledge this doesn't change any upkeep costs, I'll check up on that now though.

EDIT - My reasoning for changing the initial tax levels is that drawing the full income from everybody for the first 5 turns really cripples anything we can accomplish for the first 5 turns in terms of independant duchies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

On guild houses, ...

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

1 - Not sure I'm a fan of the chancellor being able to override a duke's build orders in order to make ships or agents...

---

OK, we could make it that the Chancellor can do it without consent provided it does not crowd out any other build orders - ie if there is space in the buld queue. (AFAIK, recruitment does not deplete population in M2TW, unlike RTW.) And the Chancellor could be allowed to override through an edict (an exception to the usual "no messing with the Dukes' own stuff" rule.)

Quote:

---

I think it may actually be better to go with Econ's initial inclination of normal unit size settings.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

My reasoning for changing the initial tax levels is that drawing the full income from everybody for the first 5 turns really cripples anything we can accomplish for the first 5 turns in terms of independant duchies.

---

Agreed - this is the kind of thing this trial can get sorted out; ie what level of taxes should we start with.

EDIT: On the money side - I can now get the starting numbers to add up (at least for Scotland). Apparently each general costs 200 gold in wages per turn, on top of the upkeep for their bodyguard's. This will drive our castles into deficit. I propose we cover that money about of Imperial funds for now (we do get 1500 income just from the King's something or other), but for clarity, let's include it in each duchy's accounts.

I'm still struggling to think of how we balance castles and cities. One radical idea would be to make both initial castles non-playable. Staufen could provide for the Imperial army; Innsbruck could act as the provider for Ducal armies. Both could be run by the Chancellor from the Imperial budget.

If a Duke acquires a second settlement as a castle, I don't think that would cause problems and he could keep it. We could maybe use Lucjan's 25% mark-up idea to give people a reason to want their own castle rather than merely rely on Innsbruck.

I just got the game today. However, my brother's computer's hard drive just died. So it may be a few days before I can play. And to make matters worse, I'll be away for a couple of weeks starting next week, so my imput into this test may be rather limited.

Looking very good, this new PBEM!
Although I am newcomer to the Throneroom, I've followed the Will of the Senate PBEM with quite some interest.

I'd like to express my interest in joining this game. I've had a quick glance at all the initial posts and rules, and though I'll need to read it more thoroughly, at first sight this looks like a superb experience.
Is there still room for a new convert? I have the game, so I'd like to play as a duke, but I understand that depends on available avatars.

Strappy Horse, it's up to Lucjan, but in the light of Ignoramus's post, I think we could use someone to play the Emperor (and as such, Duke of Bologna). Be aware, this is a test PBM and as such probably won't last though - maybe 10 or 20 turns, until we know the format is workable. Then we'll start it for real with a playlist to be decided.

I wouldn't mind participating in the test, actually it would give me an estimate as to how much work and time a full game would be as well.

Good point - don't be discouraged by my playlist comment; with the WoS game, everyone who wanted to play could (eventually) get avatars. It's just there is a squeeze at the beginning, since we start out with only 6.

On another matter, I've compiled the unit stats for the HRE:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...20&postcount=8

As always, they don't tell the whole story but are better than nothing.

Ok, thank you Econ for your dealing with my silly indecisions on unit size. lol

I agree with your new proposals for fleet and agent recruitment.

And also have no problems with Strappy Horse coming into the test, I'd actually enjoy it, we need another active face or two around here to offer their opinion. Strappy Horse, the available avatars are either the Prince in Staufen (landless, but could lead the Imperial army), the Emperor in Bologna (Duke of Bologna), and Braden has been really tied up lately, so if he doesn't come around by the next edict session I'll open up Maxamillian in Nuremburg so you could switch out to him if you wanted to later on.

As far as starting castles go.

This sounds like the best idea on the initial balancing act between cities and castles that I've heard yet. lol.

Innsbruck, Staufen and Frankfurt are Imperial territory, may be gifted at a later date if either Staufen or Innsbruck become cities, and generals should be paid for by the Imperial coffers. A generals bodyguard should be financed by the duke, but the general himself should be paid his wages by the empire.

How's that sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

As far as starting castles go.

This sounds like the best idea on the initial balancing act between cities and castles that I've heard yet. lol.

---

Yes, but on reflection it's a counsel of despair. Let's see if we can make a Duke with a castle work during this trial, by adjusting taxes or collective payments etc.

It's worth trying to find a better solution because we may have a situation where we conquer castles and have landless players who would like to have them. In my English campaign, it seemed that almost half conquered settlements were castles (although I often switched them to cities, as there's a benefit from troop specialisation - apart from anything else, upgrading castles is pricey whereas cities often don't seem to need upgrading).

If everything fails, we can use "no starting castles" idea for the real thing.

Let's just let it play out for a bit and see what sort of agreements we can come to. Pairing up one or two cities with a single castle for its maintenance should be no problem even at the start, since we've got four cities and two castles. It's just a matter of letting the "market" do its job, as well as allowing an Imperial town make a payment/protection agreement with a Ducal castle, or vice versa.

In future, as we conquer territory, I think this ought to be something that drives Imperial direction and deliberation in the Diet -- i.e. "why take that castle when the income from that town farther south is far more needed?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

Strappy Horse, the available avatars are either the Prince in Staufen (landless, but could lead the Imperial army), the Emperor in Bologna (Duke of Bologna)...

---

Thanks, from these to choices I'd prefer to play the Emperor/Duke of Bologna.
More to be able to play as a Duke, than for the added bonus of getting to play the Emperor.
But as I understand from the Start topic, it only comes into play during disputes between players/Dukes, only then Imperial intervention is needed, right? The rest of the time it is up to the elected Chancellor to rule the Reich.

I've been going through all the rule and start topics, but I am not sure how to deal with the role of Emperor/Duke of Bologna.

Do I roleplay the Duke of Bologna, and does the Chancellor speak with the Emperor's voice?
Or do I roleplay the Emperor, who's left all the tedious business of ruling an Empire to a capable 'servant' and only has to use his 'authority' as a judge, presiding over intra-Ducal conflicts?

I'll assume it's the later, for purposes of the first round. I'll post in the orders and deliberations thread as such.

Just wanted to say that, despite my total lack of comments on the test campaign, I will be participating in the full one. I look forward to reading the results of the test.

Good question Horse, anyone? As far as my understanding goes, I had thought that we would be ignoring the "Emperor" title entirely. However, as is always the case, I could be wrong!

The Emperor and Chancellor, from my understanding, are similar to the President/Prime Minister roles of many modern democracies.

The Emperor deals with internal diplomatic issues and has alot of pull in the deliberations based on his authority, but the actual day to day governance of the empire (finances, movements, construction, etc) is carried out by our elected Chancellor.

EDIT - It is also my understanding that there are only a few people allowed to lead the Imperial Army. They being the Emperor, the Crown Prince, or the Chancellor. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I like Lucjan's ideas about the Emperor (and Crown Prince's) roles. They should be given the highest respect, but have relatively little power in themselves (compared to the Chancellor). According to the draft constitution, what power they should have would essentially be arbitration over rules disputes - like the Senate speaker in WoS impeachment debate at the moment. In WoS the Speaker is apolitical and divorced from a specific partisan avatar, but in this game, I think we can ask players to ride two horses. Ideally, in the full game, I'd like the Emperor to be the First Chancellor (no election) - sort of to get the "politics" out of his system, so he can be impartial thereafter.

The touch about the Emperor, Crown Prince and Chancellor only being allowed to lead the Imperial army is a nice one.

Good. It is agreed then. ~:)

I think that the the Emperor ought to have a fair bit of power. It wasn't until the death of Frederick II that the Emperor lost his influence and power.

Ok, have to say that my commitments have reached a peak now and I can’t devote the time I’d like to this test. Please open Max Count of Nuremburg up for anyone else to use in my stead.

Sorry guys, need to allocate time to new University course (damn you Algebra!), WotS PBeM and World of Warcraft……oh! And spending time with my family….all too much to add anything else to at the moment.

aye, I'd say that sounds busy Braden, well done having the courage to say no to something ~:) And good luck balancing it all!

Thanks for the support..........

....and hands up who can help with Quadratic Equations? (lol)

Depends on what a quadratic equation is. It sounds familiar but I haven't had algebra in about 3 years, if it is what I think it is, I could help.

and my main problem is that I'm 36 and haven't done Algebra for 20 years!!

Anyway, hope this test goes well as I'm aiming for a new PC in about 10 months time.

send me a pm with one of your problems I'll see if I can help when I wake up in a few hours.

...it's ok. I don't think its something that I should be using the forum for and besides...

...why spread my misery? :laugh4:

(hmmm...might send you one anyway :clown: )

:laugh4:

Good luck with that, either way. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

on the knights you wanted, I suggested that we formalise contracts in the orders phase. So you could type something like:

"Contract Vienna 1: Duke Leopold offers Duke Otto X florins for one unit of mailed knights, to be trained immediately."

And I would reply

"Contract Vienna 1: accepted."

And at the same time, I would give orders for the unit to be training.

---

Sounds ideal. I will do that from now on. And sorry for missing your post about formalising the contract, I think I lost it in the discussion of finances, etc.

I think the major problem with this PBEM for me so far has been clarity. Part of this is because of the crossover that's happened with the ooc/non-ooc thread(s), part is because we're simply working things out and there is a lot of discussion on non-clear points. At times I log on only to be pulled away a minute later, leaving threads marked as read but in reality unread, which hasn't helped.

Should inter-ducal contracts be haggled out in public? or should they be via in-character PMs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamur

I think the major problem with this PBEM for me so far has been clarity.

---

I know, but that's why I think this trial is such a good idea. It would be a major pain to have a full blown PBM with 12+ players be unclear. But hopefully we can hammer out the complexities and get something streamlined in this test. :smash:

Quote:

---

Should inter-ducal contracts be haggled out in public? or should they be via in-character PMs?

---

Good question. I guess in the real thing we should use in-character PMs for bilateral issues, saving the deliberations for general issues. But in the trial I would prefer to use the in-character "deliberations" thread. Apart from anything else, it would be useful to see the kind of interactions that go on between other players so we might learn from them.

With contracts, you could always make an offer in the orders thread and I could accept or make a counter-offer. (We can keep editing our single orders post until Lucjan shouts "orders phase closed!")

Quote:

---

We can keep editing our single orders post until Lucjan shouts "orders phase closed!"

---

Eh, good point, had not thought of that. I was wondering where to put the formal language of a proposal, since it isn't actually an order until it's agreed to. But the possibility of edits (combined with the very definite "Starting Orders for turn 2" you mentioned earlier to Lucjan) would make it all very clear.

I'll give that a go now.

I'm sorry I'll have to pull out of the test. I'm going away for a couple of weeks in a few days, and so I won't be able to participate. However, I do hope that I can contribute to the final version of rules. Will I be able to?

Also, when is the real thing starting?

If needed, I will step in to fill a vacated spot.

I'll leave it to Lucjan to decide, but AFAIK, we do have Count Maximillian of Nuremburg unassigned. I offered him to FLYdude, but in his reply, he did not bite:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=16

Plus, we have the Crown Prince, who could perhaps be given Hamburg as his settlement.

Ok, I like the idea of the 1 post per player each turn in the orders thread. Continually edited as necessary until I yell "orders phase closed." So let's go with that.


As for your questions Ignoramus, no definate date on a full start time yet but you'd be welcome to join when it opens.

And is it ok for TinCow to join as Maximllian of Nuremburg? (sorry, I realise you have a lot on your plate, right now, Lucjan.)

Of course it is! :2thumbsup:

Lucjan, I am just reading through, but I thought there was going to be a provision that only dukes of castle can build forts or is that not going to be implemented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneCold

Lucjan, I am just reading through, but I thought there was going to be a provision that only dukes of castle can build forts or is that not going to be implemented?

---

I did not put that in these trial rules, as I think it's just an extra complication and given the complexity of Ducal accounts, I think every simplification we can get is welcome. The rule aimed to address the balancing of castles and cities, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the problem. We can bear it in mind and think about the balancing problem throughout this trial.

I am concerned about the lack of a reward for the Chancellor. In WOTS, being Consul meant you could fight many more battles with your avatar, thus gaining a great deal of influence and other positive traits. As far as I can tell, there is nothing here that makes the Chancellor position advantageous. Given the extremely complicated work (especially financial) required by the Chancellor position, I am afraid that we might have difficulty getting contenders for the position every 5 turns if we don't offer something in return.

From what we have seen so far, it appears that the ultimate power in this game will be wealth. This is a good thing, because it is VERY realistic, especially for the nobility of the time period. It also adds a very different aspect to differentiate it from WOTS. So, let's give some kind of monetary reward for the Chancellor.

So, here's my proposal:
The Chancellor is allowed to spend up to 1/3 of each turn's Imperial net profits on his own possessions. This amount will be known as the Chancellor's Purse. This is strictly limited to net profits and does not include any Imperial monies carried forward from a previous turn. Any monies from the Chancellor's Purse which are not spent by the Chancellor are immediately returned to the Imperial treasury; the monies do not belong to the Chancellor, they are simply made available to him for use if he should require them each turn. The Chancellor's Purse cannot be accessed by the Chancellor until his own Ducal funds reach 0.*

*The purpose of this last line is to make sure the Chancellor's Purse is used for 'extra' building, recruiting, or business, not used to allow the Chancellor to get free stuff every turn. In order to access it, the Chancellor will have to blow through all accumulated wealth, which may well be a bad thing.

Example of use:

Chancellor has Ducal income of 811. Chancellor's Purse is 400. Chancellor spends 600 on a grain exchange. Chancellor accesses Chancellor's Purse to pay for a merchant (cost 550). The remainder of the Ducal income (211) is spent on the merchant first, then the Chancellor's Purse is accessed to make up the remainder (339). If, the remaining 61 in the Chancellor's Purse is unspent, it is immediately available for Imperial purchases that turn and becomes carried over monies if unspent by anyone.

Great suggestion TC, I will agree entirely with this. I had wondered if Lucjan's feeling of success on the accounting front was payment enough. :laugh4:

Tamur, *speaks in ominous emperor palpatine-ish tone* Do no doubt how easily I can be amused. OOH! SHINY RED BALL!
:jumping: ~:handball: :jumping:

EDIT - As for the judgement on this, I'll leave it up to the general concensus.

I agree with a financial reward for the Chancellor. High offices were often accompanied with a substantial reward.

I think we should keep it simple though, just an extra income, with the saved florins remaining in the ducal treasury seems fine with me.

Some more things about the role of the emperor, historically Kings travelled alot through their lands, 'honouring' their dukes with a prolonged visit on the duke's costs ofcourse.
This way they could keep their lords in check a bit, mostly by draining his financial scources to pay for the royal entourage.

This might be an interesting idea for this pbem as well. Let the Duke who's hosting the Emperor pay for the bodyguard upkeep.
I am not yet sure how it plays out, or if it gives the Emperor too much power?
What do you think about this?

I like the idea of visiting to honour someone from a gameplay perspective. This could be extended of course to dukes visiting other dukes, or a cardinal visiting a town, etc. And it is very true that hosts footed the bill for anyone who happened to come calling of high rank.

However, with the financial realm already a bit complex, I hesitate to add another financial rule that the Chancellor would need to be aware of and enforce each round. It's not completely out of the question, but I think we will need to be cautious when adding financial rules.

Lets take note of that then and come back to it later on, when everything financially is more definately stable.

If we want something far less complex for the Chancellor, we can simply give him a salary. Something like 200 to 400 per turn from the Imperial income.

Just a quick note here: weekends are always fairly bad for me to participate due to time with the kids' activities, etc (lots of snow, skiing season has starting up here).

I did at least want to say that I've noted the rebels and would like to make an agreement with at least one other Duke to attack together, even if it is next turn.

However, if this turn needs to be completed by tomorrow (given the 48 hour limit), I won't be able to fight any battles. So if no one else can commit troops to the battle, I would like the sergeants to avoid the rebels for now and move to Vienna in whatever way is possible. If, on the other hand, some other Duke wishes to join forces with me, I will send out both of my spear militia and one unit of archers (but not Leopold) to fight the rebels, and whomever has sent reinforcements can control the battle, including my units.

Sorry for the brief and sketchy orders, but I've got to be running!

I looked into it, and troops from Vienna couldn't reach the rebel army until the second turn anyway. I'll have the sargeants avoid them and go around, we'll deal with the rebels in the deliberations.

The rebels on on my territory and I am interested in disposing of them, but I can't do it what my current garrison and I do not want to hire more troops for a couple more turns yet. I will certainly help dispose of them and I'll even take responsibility for the battle myself, but I need time to develop Nuremburg before I start increasing my military upkeep.

Just noticed that the free upkeep units only count for the ones you can recruit in your city. So for the Dukes among us with militia spearmen in their army, the most economical building at this time is to build a barracks (1200 florins), and save 250-375 florins per turn on upkeep.

I thought you all knew that. :sweatdrop:

Hehe, I never paid much attention to it, I just noticed that sometimes spear militia were free of upkeep, while at other times I had to pay them.

Just for the record, the way cities work in regards to free upkeep is that any unit stationed in the city that the city is able to recruit, can remain there as a garrison unit free of upkeep charge, up to the number specified under the cities walls description. If they leave the city they start costing upkeep. I believe this applies to any units that the city can build itself. So any spear militia, ranged militia, even the merchant cavalry militia, once constructable in your city, become upkeep free so long as they don't leave the city.

Are we positive that it applies to anything the city can build? I'm almost certain that in the games I have played, artillery units and the Venetian 'standard' unit did not get free upkeep. I was under the impression that only units with the word "Militia" in their title could get free upkeep, and then only when the city could build them.

I think that's right, TinCow.

BTW, what do people (esp. TinCow and Tamur) think ooc about the composition of the putative South German army. I proposed hiring some merc crossbows and spears, as they are distinctly superior to the peasant archers and spear militia. But Lucjan has a point that they are more costly (almost twice the upkeep) and with three general's knights units, we may not need to rely on quality infantry. Maybe form an army of our own units and go for the mercs in a crisis? (We may need quality infantry if the Italians comes for us.)

What should be the initial composition of the force?
3 archers - so we have a chance of missile superiority
3 spears - to protect the archers & be the anvil
3 generals - the hammer
1 mounted sergeant? - backup for the hammer

I guess we should do this in character, but ooc is easier.

Sorry, yes, TinCow is correct. Any militia the city can recruit are upkeep free.

As for army comp, it's going to be a coalition of the southern dukes, so I'll keep out of that, just wanted to say that it may be preferable to drop one archer for a spear. With so much cavalry I'm not sure if you should really be worried about missile superiority, and more with holding the line. Spears die really quickly in m2 if faced with even a slightly better foe, so you may want a reserve, as opposed to extra missiles, who if your initial line breaks are a guaranteed flight risk.

Lucjan I am a little confused about the accounts for Innsbruck this season - I built a road, but I can't see it being deducted from my balance anywhere. (This may relate to the earlier discussion about putting in a column for building costs etc - the WoS has been preoccupying me, so I am not following this as closely as I should be).

Agreed with Lucjan on more spears, less archers. Two units of archers plus three generals and the mounted sergeants gives us a strong force in the pre-melee and very strong force in the pinned stages of any battle.

I think we need that stronger spear line to avoid losing the advantage that a solid pin/flank maneuver gives us.

Turn 4, I could train units of Town Militia and that would allow me to move Leopold & company halfway to the rebels this turn. I contribute two units of Spear Militia plus an Archer unit to the combined force.

Whoever commands that battle make sure you use your generals to max effect against their crossbows, they have Hussites, which, although they're ranged, are absolute beasts in early period melee too. (I believe they have 11 attack and 14 defence, superior to any infantry we can field right now)

From Orders thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

OOC - Just a note...are merchants really worth it? They die really quickly when encountered by enemy merchants and cost 550 to build, but only bring in very meager amounts in trade, only around 22 florins for the highest of trade goods. Maybe I'm missing something and they contribute to something other than "merchants income" in the treasury window. But if they don't, they seem like wasted cash. Could somebody more knowledgable on how they work fill us in?

---

Merchants start making a lot of money when you use them to 'defeat' other merchants. The higher the skill of the defeated merchant, the more money you get. Even a level 0 or 1 merchant will reward you with a good 500 to 1000, and high level merchants can net you upwards of 5000. Of course, this only pays off if you succeed. If you fail, you lose your merchant and your investment.

I find it is best to 'train' merchants by letting them sit on resources for a while. It seems that they work best in groups when they are all sitting on the same kind of resource. This helps them gain points in the monopoly trait line. Once a merchant is around level 4-6, it's time to go hunting with them. Try to take down easy targets first to gain experience, then work your way up to the tough ones.

Also, other merchants will not 'attack' your merchant unless he is sitting on a resource. If you do not want to be attacked, do not end your turn on a resource.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

From Orders thread:
Also, other merchants will not 'attack' your merchant unless he is sitting on a resource. If you do not want to be attacked, do not end your turn on a resource.

---

I hadn't noticed this, but that does make it easier to micromanage them into real economical big guns.

One more thing about agents though, some of them have an agent limit on the number of agents one can recruit. Priests and merchants are the best examples of this ofcourse (I never reached the agent limit for spies and diplomats).

IIRC the first three levels of a church only allow for 1 priest in total.
I thought with the construction of a cathedral I could build an extra priest in my Milan save.
I guess it works the same way with merchants, one per city untill at least the level 4 market.

In that case it does not seem right for a Duke to profit from other Duke's mercantile buildings, unless its in consultation with the other Duke.

Eh, good point Strappy Horse. I had not thought of the faction-wide limit on merchants. That alone is reason enough for Vienna not to recruit anymore until the market gets to a higher level.

I think all provinces should have ownership of the merchant slots they generate. For instance, if Nuremburg generates 1 merchant slot, I can maintain up to 1 merchant at any time without consulting anyone else. This would also allow for more trade between Dukes, as I could very well sell the rights to my slot to Vienna.

I would avoid selling agent slot rights for anything to other players for the sole purpose of keeping an organised record of things without having to update three pages worth of changes every turn, because even now we're starting to get into a situation where multiple dukes are lending forces to a conglomeration of units and it's going to be impossible, with several dukes lending the same unit types, to keep track of the upkeep from which duke's spears died and which didn't.

I recommend you all chip in exactly 1/3 of the cost, as you all equally benefit from the protection of the army and whatever potential offensive maneouvers it may make. Or come up with some other way, but once losses start to set in, it's not going to be possible to keep track of all the individual units. Any ideas?

Another issue I could see coming up is if the army gets disbanded after it has performed its tasks. As an unrelated example, say three dukes each contribute one unit of spear militia to an army. The army engages in battle, and one unit of spear militia suffers serious casualties, and the other two just a few. Who gets what back when the army is disbanded? Also, dukes may contribute unevenly to an army, so splitting the upkeep evenly might be unfair. Here is what I propose.

I think it would be possible to split these things up fairly with the application of the appropriate amount of math. I understand the chancellor may already be getting overwhelmed with the number of computations needed. However, unlike the end-turn accounting, these computations would only have to be performed twice: when the army is assembled, and when the army is disbanded.

1. Each duke will pay a constant fraction of upkeep.

The fraction of upkeep can easily be computed at the begining, when the army is formed. Just add the upkeep of all the units a duke is contributing, and divide it by the upkeep of the enitre army. This fraction remains constant. As the army loses men, the upkeep of the army goes down, but each duke still pays the same fraction of the upkeep, regardless of if the units he contributed were the ones that died or not. The fraction need be calculated once for each duke, when the army is formed. The fractions of all dukes need add up to 1. Round-off error is possible, in which case the discrepancy could be added/subtracted from imperial coffers.

2. When the army is disbanded, each duke will: a) receive back any unique units he contributed, and b) will take an equal number of casualties in non-unique units.

This is one is more tricky. Part A is easy. If there is only one unit of mounted sergeants in the army, then the duke that contributed them will get whatever of them are left alive at the end.

Part B applies when there are multiple units of the same type in one army. It's impossible to tell which duke's unit is which on the battlefield. Ideally, they would all take the same number of casualties, and each duke would get back the number of units he contributed. But, they'll take uneven casualties, so unless there is some way to evenly split up the remaining troops among the dukes (is there?), there'll have to be an equivalent way of doing this.

I'll illustrate one equivalent way using an example. Say 2 dukes each contribute 1 unit of town militia to an army. Town militia has 75 men and costs 290 florins to recruit, and 125 florins to upkeep (as an exercise, each duke would have to pay an upkeep fraction of 0.50 for this army). Now suppose these units take some casualties, such that when you recombine them you have one full unit (75 men), and one depleted unit of say 30 men. Total number of casualties was 75 - 30 = 45 men. That is 22.5 men/duke. So, each duke should, ideally, receive 52.5 men. However, one of them will receive 75 men, while the other receives just 30. The discrepancy is 52.5 - 30 = 22.5 men. The idea is to make the difference up with money. The militia costs 3.87 florins/man to recruit. So, the duke that is receiving extra men should pay 3.87*22.5 = 87 florins to the duke that is receiving fewer men. This idea can be extended easily to multiple dukes and units. This computation need only be performed once, when the army is disbanded. It need not even be done by the chancellor, just keep a record of who contributed what.

I agree with FLYdude's #1.

As an alternative to simplify the casualty problem even further, how about this:

All casualties are deducted initially from the units owned by the player who actually fights the battle. Any extra casualties beyond that are allocated to the person whose contribution to the army has the lowest upkeep, followed by the next lowest, etc. Arrangements can be made for rearranging the casualty deduction order, but this must be completed before the time the army is constituted. If no arrangements are made, the above order is default.

Reasoning behind this: The general in command should take responsibility for the majority of the casualties, since it is his own actions that result in the losses. If he has to bear the brunt of the losses, he will be wary about taking risks. After that, the person who contributes the LEAST to the army will take the losses. This will encourage people to contribute larger amounts to their allies, rather than smaller.

I would agree with TinCow's emmendations, except that I'm unclear how the deductions from the commanding general would work?

Or, alternatively, maintain them as three seperate standing armies and move them in unison, so as to surround the opponent, that way upkeep doesn't need any awkward mathematical divisions and everybody loses what they're supposed to.

As, reviewing the rules, this united army conflicts with the 1 army per duke rule, as you would all have standing units in one large army, you'd be unable to create a second one.

I am still not seeing a big mechanics problem with combined armies (as opposed to equity or political problems). The only mechanics problem I can see is identifying whose unit is whose, so we can keep tabs on the upkeep and casualties. When units get battleworn, this may be less of an issue - my peasant archers may have 58 men, Tamur's have 59, so we will know whose is whose before battle starts and should be able to keep track of them - hopefully the order of the units on the units tab is the same as that in the detailed post-battle casualties report.

The identification problem will only arise when units are full strength or otherwise are identical through coincidence[1]. In that case, I like TinCow's idea: in the case of units that are identical at the start of a battle, then after the battle, the unit with the highest casualties will be said to be that of the commanding general; the others will then assigned to other contributing Dukes with the ones contributing the least in upkeep taking the biggest hit.

I think the Duke commanding the combined army should take care of the record keeping concerning the assignment and upkeep of units, to ease the Chancellor's burden.

In-game, players could agree on more radical solutions: e.g. treat the units as common property, with pooled upkeep; require equal contributions etc. But I'd be inclined to leave those to emerge as political solutions to the equity problem rather than ones imposed by the game rules to solve recordkeeping or identification problems.


[1]I am assuming the commanding general will be honest and scrupulous in keeping track of unit casualties - so if his unit gets wiped out, he won't say it was another players unit. But conversely, if it genuinely happens that another player's unit that gets wiped out, I don't think the commanding general should be forced to adopt that unit ex post and take the hit. In my experience, M2TW combat is a lot bloodier than RTW (or at least Roman RTR) so we have to accept significant casualties.

Perhaps we should leave this casualty issue up to players to decide amongst themselves, and relay how they want their upkeep to be dealt with to the chancellor.

I've got enough things to keep track of the way it is, so I'm just going to keep them as all seperate stacks, and work out the upkeep regularly.

Also, to accomodate the idea of dukes holding more than one settlement, the spreadsheet is going to go by overall ducal holdings rather than individual settlements.

Rather than keeping track of the spreadsheet stuff for 3 seperate settlements all held by one duke, I'll just add his three settlements together into a single row named Duke "whatever".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucjan

I've got enough things to keep track of the way it is, so I'm just going to keep them as all seperate stacks, and work out the upkeep regularly.

---

But if they are three separate stacks, in what way are they a single army? :inquisitive: If you merge them together, I'll keep track of the upkeep and which unit is which. (At the moment, it's pretty simple - everything would be Tamur's except for two generals and one archer.)

At the moment it's simple yes, but I'm thinking about what should be done in the future, if this were to be attempted with, say, a full stack crusader army or something of that ilk.

EDIT - Also, what does everybody think of the 1.1 patch? I'be played three custom battles with it and so far I am very, very pleased with the changes. This is the game as it should have been released to begin with.

I will say though, it's gotten very, very costly comparison to Rome in regards to manpower. We should be ready to take a much larger number of casualties than we're accustomed to, and yes...to lose more than once in a great while. Of the three battles I fought, Poland vs HRE was a severe loss, Poland vs Hungary was a decisive win, and Poland vs Byzantium was a pyhric victory, I had virtually nothing left, but luckily they had even less.

Quote:

---

We should be ready to take a much larger number of casualties than we're accustomed to, and yes...to lose more than once in a great while.

---

Battles in M2 are *much* more difficult, no more rolling over enemies as if they didn't exist.

I'm interested to see what this does to the PBM, since there is a very real danger of a battle-naive or overconfident character (which is what I'm playing Leopold as) dying pretty quickly, unlike RTW. Or getting himself captured, that should be fun.

Quote:

---

If you merge them together, I'll keep track of the upkeep and which unit is which.

---

Thanks econ, time is a miser here so I wouldn't be able to do it. In future, it might be good to have the one designated as commanding general be responsible for this, but ATM I can't do a good job of it.