This is the out of character thread for the M2TW HRE PBM, "King of the Romans", the successor to the “Will of the Senate PBM”. This first post will outline current players and rules.
We will have a brief period to tweak the rules and let people sign up to play. I am particularly interested in what mods, if any, we should use. (I will investigate this more myself today - I am thinking a minimal bug fix to deal with bad traits, the 2-hander bug & to give forlorn hope 2 HP). Please post any comments on the rules and suggested changes by 6 pm Monday UK time.
The first session of the Imperial Diet will then open. The deadline for edicts will be 6pm Thursday UK time. There will then be a 24 hour period of voting. The first Chancellor (probably GeneralHankerchief, who, as Emperor, has an option on taking the first reign[1]) can start playing 6pm Friday UK time.
I am assigning the initial avatars to players based on those who participated in the trial thread, plus GeneralHankerchief, who was the longest serving Will of the Senate player who never got to be Consul until the curtain was falling.
Other players can still participate fully as unnamed electors. They will be assigned avatars in due course by me based on their level of activity in the Will of the Senate thread; the time they sign up for this PBM (post in this thread) and especially how active they are in voting and speaking as a (nameless) elector in the Imperial Diet Deliberations. Eventually, every player will get an avatar, although there will be a wait at the beginning.
Other players please sign up and declare which House - Franconia (north), Swabia (west), Austria (east) or Bavaria (south) - you want to be an elector of. Note the Dukes of Franconia and Bavaria have not yet been spawned. You will be named Second Elector of X etc in the order in which you sign up in this thread. I will allocate settlements fairly equally across the Houses, so please do not all sign up for the same House. If the computer spawns many more avatars in a particular house, I may reassign players to Houses to avoid them waiting too long (subject to their consent).
Where to post:
All out of character discussion in this thread.
When the game starts, I will create more threads, so that:
All in character discussion in the Imperial Diet deliberations thread.
All in character stories in the stories thread.
Chancellor reports in the Chancellor reports thread.
All battle reports in the Battle reports thread.
RULES
How to play – in brief
All players are “electors”. They must choose a noble house to belong to - Franconia (north), Swabia (west), Austria (east) or Bavaria (south). Eventually all players will be represented by an in-game character (typically a general, but possibly spy, priest or diplomat - assassins may have too short a life expectancy to be advisable) or avatar who will represent them.
Typically, if a player’s avatar gets into a battle, the player is expected to download the savegame and fight the battle. Players may also be awarded a settlement to manage (making them a Count). They will decide what tax rate to charge and set a build queue (which must be followed if anything is built in their settlement).
Collectively, the nobles form the Imperial Diet. This has two functions - to elect a Chancellor and to set edicts. The Chancellor will be the “reigning player” and play the game. He will move all the generals, authorise any buildings from the build queues and train any units/agents.
”Edicts” are laws that mandate the Chancellor to specific action. Crucially, these include authorising declarations of war.
Game settings
*Patched MT2TW
*Hard campaigns, very hard battles.
*Large unit size.
*Battle timer on. Show CPU Moves, Manage all Settlements
Standard victory conditions (45 provinces, including Jerusalem).
The only mod we will use initially is Medifix 1.2:
At a later stage, we may use a mod to handle the 2-handed weapon bug and give the Forlorn Hope 2 hitpoints, but those should be savegame compatible. And I'd rather CA fix that through a patch than we use a mod.
Hard restrictions on play: * only two land units (including a general) may travel on each ship.
How to play - detailed rules
1. The role of players.
1.1 Each player will roleplay an “elector” of the HRE. They must choose one of four noble houses to belong to. Players are born into a noble House. It is in their blood and cannot be changed. It is determined by which of the four lines on the family tree their avatar falls under (except for the three starter Generals, for whom it is determined by their initial geography). [Note - if avatars spawn disproportionately in certain Houses, Electors of one House may be offered an avatar of another, but then they effectively role-play a new character.]
1.2 Over time, all players will be assigned an avatar (typically a general) by econ21 to represent them. They should roleplay their traits.
1.3 Players whose avatars lead in a battle will be expected to fight that battle. This will involve downloading the savegame of the battle, playing it and then uploading the resulting savegame. Uploading the post-battle save must be done within 24 hours of the pre-battle savegame being uploaded. If the deadline expires, the battle is autoresolved.
1.4 Players whose avatars are governors of the settlement for more than two turns are entitled to set the taxes and build queue of that settlement. If anything is built in the settlement, it must be the first item on the build queue.
1.5 Each elector will periodically vote to elect a Chancellor (reigning player) of the HRE and on edicts to direct him.
1.6 Players are encouraged to stand for the post of Chancellor.
1.7 Players are encouraged to write in-character stories in the stories thread; to discuss matters of state in the Imperial Diet deliberations thread; to write-up battle reports; to PM each other in character for role-playing etc. [Note: when posting screenshots, we could keep them full size but put them under spoiler tags.]
2. The role of the Chancellor.
2.1 The Chancellor is much like the player of a solo M2TW campaign - he moves all the units and agents on the map; he decides all the buildings and which units/agents to be trained.
2.2 However, he delegates battles to the player whose general leads the HRE force. And he follows the build queues and tax policies of players with governors.
2.3 He also must obey Imperial edicts and the constitution (these rules) or face political consequences.
2.4 The player is elected every 20 turns until it is judged the Empire is “large” (say, when it has 20 provinces), when reigns will switch to 10 turns.
2.5 The Chancellor must appoint army commanders and governors. He must maintain a list of who has what post and notify players if they are appointed or dismissed from a role.
3. The role of the Imperial Diet
3.1. The Imperial Diet will meet in session every 10 turns. Out of session, there can be open debate and deliberations. Each session lasts 3 days of real time.
3.2. At each session, nobles can propose edicts. These require two seconders to be put to the vote. Edicts are laws that direct what the Chancellor should do.
3.3. 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.
*3.4. The rules of the game can be changed by a Noble Charter Amendments (2/3 majority required) except those marked with a *.
3.5. Tied edicts fail. If contradictory edicts are passed, the one with the most votes takes priority.
3.6. Edicts can only last for 10 turns.
3.7. Every 20 turns (10 turns if the HRE is large), or on the death or impeachment of the Chancellor, there is an election for the post of Chancellor. Ties lead to a fresh ballot. A second tie is decided by seniority (avatar age). Voting is open for 2 days.
*3.8. The Chancellor can be impeached and removed from office by a 2/3 majority of the Imperial Diet.
3.9. 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.
*3.10 Influential players get bonus votes. (maximum +5 bonus).
civil influence - cumulative:
+1 if player is Count of a settlement
+1 if player is a governor of a settlement
+1 if player is either a Chancellor (mid-terms only), ex-Chancellor, Prince or Duke [+1 max] military influence:
+1 if player is or was an Army commander
+1 if player is or was a Field Marshall (cumulative with Army commander)
The player who is Emperor gets bonus votes differently, being equal to his authority.
4. The role of the four houses - Dukes and Counts
4.1 There will be four houses representing the four main branches of the family tree: Franconia (north), Swabia (west), Austria (east) or Bavaria (south). At the start of the game, Prince Henry is Duke of Swabia and Leopold is Duke of Austria. The Dukes of Franconia and Bavaria have not yet been spawned (they will be the two males who take positions under the Emperor in the family tree).
4.2 Bavaria and Franconia have no Duke yet, so there are Stewards to act in their place until them. Until there is a Duke, they receive the +2 influence of a Duke. However, they cannot create Counts. (There will be no Count of Innsbruck until Bavaria has a Duke.) The Stewards themselves are not Counts. Like Otto in Innsbruck, they are just soldiers, self-made men of lesser station [think Denethor in Lord of the Rings]. They could be rewarded by being made a Count by their Duke when he spawns, though. And they could marry into the Royal line, potentially becoming the Duke themselves.
4.3 The Emperor controls the initial allocation of settlements (e.g. upon conquest). At the start of the game, we have:
Frankfurt - capital of Franconia, home of the Duke (TBC)
Stafen - capital of Swabia, home of the Duke (Prince Henry)
Nuremburg - capital of Bavaria, home of the Duke (TBC)
Innsbruck - second city of Bavaria
Vienna - capital of Austria, home of the Duke (Leopold)
Bologna - is not assigned to any house
4.4 Dukes can then grant a settlement to a player, making him Count of that settlement. The settlements remain nominally within the relevant Duchy. There are no Counts at the start of the game. Capitals of a House need no Counts and cannot be given to them - they belong to the Duke (or his Steward). The Emperor could allocate Bologna to a House at any time, but after that, it will permanently belong to that House. There is an expectation that Franconia will extend north, Swabia west, Bavaria south and Austria east but this should not be followed too rigidly - e.g. the Emperor does not have to give Bologna to Bavaria.
[Note: It is expected that settlements will not be gifted lightly by the Emperor and by Dukes/Stewards - they should be regarded as precious rewards. There is no particular value to settlements in themselves, however. Avatars will be assigned according to the family tree, so more settlements does not mean more family members in a House - nor does it raise influence (beyond the one-off +1 for being a Count). A player cannot be the Count of more than one settlement. Dukes can have more than one settlement not dispersed to counts (and given the ratio of settlements to generals in a game, this is inevitable), but this provides no particular benefits.]
4.5 Counts have right of first refusal on being governor of their settlement.
4.6 Counts who are not the natural sons of a Duke (e.g. adoptees and sons in law) may be lose their titles at the whim of the Duke. They are referred to as bonded Counts and are expected to act according to the wishes of their Duke. Natural sons of a Duke may not lose their settlements - they are referred to as freehold Counts.
4.7 Dukes and Counts should name a successor, who will take over their titles and settlements when they die. If no successor is named, the oldest natural son inherits, (if none, oldest adopted son; if none again, then the oldest son-in-law).
4.8 Dukes are expected to guide their families for the good for their Duchies. Members of a house do not have to follow their Dukes in terms of politics. However, the Duke can make players a Count by giving them a settlement (granting them +1 influence). Only the Duke of your House (not another Duke) can make you a Count. Houses will not be the only division in the Diet - chivalry, piety, strategy and other factors may also divide players.
5 The role of the Emperor and Prince
5.1 The Emperor presides over the Imperial Diet as in 3.9. He is the "chairman" of the HRE, as opposed to the Chancellor who is the "chief executive". He will keep order in the Diet and try to make things run smoothly.
5.2 Once in his reign, typically when crowned, the Emperor can automatically assume the post of Chancellor.
5.3 The Emperor can allocate settlements to one of the Four Houses.
5.4 The Emperor adjudicates on rules disputes.
5.5 The Prince succeeds the Emperor and can deputise in his absence.
5.6 Emperors do not belong to factions - if crowned, they leave their House and - if Duke - are replaced by their chosen successor. They are expected to act for the good of the Empire and be impartial, above petty regional politics.
5.7 The Emperor decides which player-controlled avatar, if any, a Princess should marry.
6. The role of posts - military commanders and governors
6.1 If a character governs a settlement for more than two turns, the Chancellor must officially appoint him “governor”. He must request from the player the tax rate and a (buildings, not unit) build queue for the settlement for 10 turns. If any building is built in the settlement, it must be on the build queue. Governors receive +1 civil influence for the duration of their appointment, or 10 turns, whichever is longer.
6.2 If the character leaves the settlement, the build queue remains valid until it expires (i.e. 10 turns after it was drafted). Taxes may be varied.
6.3 A Count has first refusal on governing their own settlement (no other governor may be appointed unless the Count declines to govern). The Chancellor may decline to appoint (or sack) the Count as governor, in which case the settlement can have no governor without the Count’s consent.
6.4 For field armies of seven or more units (including the general), the Chancellor must appoint an “army commander”. The army commander must be a “knight”. Army commanders are appointed for the duration of the Imperial Diet session (10 turn intervals). The post is expected to be rotating. Army commanders get a permanent +1 influence and can decide what to do with prisoners after battle. They can be dismissed by Chancellors, but must be informed of this.
6.5 Avatars who take part in battles may be promoted to “knights” by the army commander. Typically, this will involve the avatar’s bodyguard fighting honourably in a battle. The Emperor, Prince and four Dukes begin the game knighted.
6.6 An avatar who wins five major battles (each against 7+ enemy units) is promoted to Field Marshall. Field Marshalls have standing armies - no unit can be taken out of their stack without their consent. They cannot be dismissed by Chancellors, although their post ends after the second regular session of the Imperial Diet (ie lasts 20 turns maximum). After their post of office ends, they may be reappointed. Field Marshalls get a permanent +2 influence and can decide what to do with captured settlements (occupy, sack, exterminate).
7. Crusades and missions.
7.1 The Chancellor must endeavour to follow missions from the Pope and Council of Nobles, unless exempted by the Diet. Missions from guilds and foreign powers are optional.
7.2 Crusades must be authorised by the Diet, unless announced by another faction.
7.3 When a crusade is called, the Chancellor must ask all generals if they wish to join. He must include at least three volunteers who reply within 48 hours. If there are more than three, he must pick the three most pious. However, he can decline a volunteer if that would usurp his pick of army commander. If the AI calls a crusade, the Chancellor can choose to follow it, even if generals wish to join - but he must still notify them immediately of the call and get their view on whether they would like to join (were he to follow the call).
8. Historical armies
The following rules apply for field armies of 15+ or more units.
Generals - max 2 units
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 8 units inc. generals
[The class of knights is therefore: Dismtd Feudal knights; Dismtd Imperial knights; Dismtd Gothic knights; Mailed knights; Feudal knights; Imperial knights; Teutonic knights; General’s bodyguard; Gothic knights; plus any mercenary knights included those great dismounted knights you get in the Holy Land.)
Total cavalry - maximum 8 units, inc mounted knights and generals
[Non-knightly cavalry includes: Mounted crossbowmen ; Reiters; Merchant cavalry; Mounted sergeants]
Artillery - maximum 2 units (5 in a siege - if caught in a field battle immediately withdraw excess of over two)
Foot missiles - maximum 6 units including artillery
[Foot missiles include: Peasant archers; Peasant crossbowmen; Crossbow militia; Pavisse crossbowmen; Arquebusiers; Handgunners ]
Total elite heavy infantry - max 6
[Elite infantry comprises Zweihander; Forlorn Hope; Landsknechts; dismounted knights and equivalent mercs - e.g. Galllowglass?]
For armies of size 7-14, the above limits are halved.
No more than half an army can be mercenary. Crusader mercenaries (crusader sergeants, crusader knights, pilgrims, fanatics) can count as natives.
Here's the old german titles of nobility and our equivalents:
Political
Elector = Kurfurst
Count = Graf
Duke = Herzog
Prince = Prinz
Emperor = Kaiser
Military
Knight = Ritter
Field Marshal = Generalfeldmarshal
01-06-2007, 14:35
Ituralde
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Just like to sign up for the game and make my willingness to participate public.
I'm not sure which house to choose though. I'm pending towards Bavaria or Austria but that's just because they're closest to Italy. I would like to play as an elector that tries to represent the Italian City States. The case it's now I guess I'll go with Austria. I'm not up as someone who has played WotS so it may take some time until I get appointed an avatar, so no hurry I guess.
Concerning Avatars: Is it possible to play as one of the Spies or Assasins. Not that you get much decision-making as you are merely a tool, but the role-playing aspect intrigues me very much and a kind of diary from someone of that notorious profession comes to mind and I would really like to do something in that direction.
Cheers!
Ituralde
01-06-2007, 16:40
TinCow
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Apologies for being AWOL for a few days. Just reinstalled Oblivion and I've been unable to tear myself away. I agree with everything that I see, but I'd like to encourage us to expand the Noble Houses aspect. As of now, that is really the only aspect of the game that is different from the WOTS. I think we should accentuate the difference so that it's not just the same old thing in a different shell.
I think we should structure the Noble Houses to allow the Duke far more power to give benefits and inflict penalties on his Counts. This would help mimic feudalism and solidify power into blocs by Houses rather than by general political philosophies. The only method I can think of to allow this without slowing down the game would be to give the Dukes a limited ability to assign or remove traits and ancillaries from their Counts. This spawns two questions:
1) Can traits/ancillaries be added and removed as easily as in RTW?
2) What traits/acillaries would be appropriate to allow Dukes to assign/remove at will?
01-06-2007, 17:05
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
First off I'd like to say congratulations to GeneralHankerchief, this is a long overdue position for him and he deserves it.
I have the following comments/suggestions.
- I agree with the mod proposals.
- I would be acceptable to a 2 turns per year mod, just so that our avatars age properly. (From my understanding, they age 1 year per two turns, which in vanilla is a total of 4 game years, and throws things really out of whack in regards to roleplaying.) Unless the game mechanics somehow manage to completely botch logic and don't allow such a mod to control their actual aging.
- The Emperor may opt to create a new Duchy from conquered lands rather than delegating these lands to existing ones, as Imperial conquest is not guaranteed to proceed in such a manner as to equally balance the power of the four currently existing Ducal houses. (We musn't forget, influence of the individual houses in this game will be key to passing or negating many an edict, and a vastly too powerful house could potentially use their influence to steamroll that of smaller houses, and the emperor's own inclinations.)
- As far as army composition, I have no knowledge of ancient HRE army composition, but my suggestion for the game would be as follows.
Divide army composition into catagories with maximumallowances for a well balanced army. Something like this (I've included the actual specific unit allowances in regards to the percentages for those who don't like the percentage idea, although the percentages are critical for forming a smaller army, and some notes regarding my calculations).
Using a Full Stack Army (20 units)
General = 5-10% (1-2 Units)
Cavalry Elites = 0-15% (0-2 Units)
Cavalry = 0-20% (0-4 Units) *
Missiles and Support = 15-30% (3-6 units) **
Mercenaries = 30% (6 units) ***
Infantry or Missile Elites = 15% (3 units)
Infantry Regulars = No Maximum Allowance
* - Overall Cavalry involvement is limited to 25% (five units). Cavalry deployment is restricted to a 2:1 ratio of elites over regulars. For every elite cavalry you have beyond the 1 general unit required to fight the battle, you must have 2 regular cavalry, unless you take an additional elite. A second general counts towards the first unit of your elite cavalry spot, as well the second unit of your general spot. So the possible combinations are as follows.
1 General, 4 regular cav.
1 General, 2 elite cav.
1 General, 1 elite cav, 2 regular cav.
2 Generals, 2 regular cav.
2 Generals, 1 elite cav.
** - Artillery is included in this catagory, and restricted to 15% (3 units).
*** - Native troops must be deployed in an overall 2:1 ratio to mercenaries, and mercenaries occupy a unit slot of their appropriate type.
Remember, these are maximum percentages, not minimum.
So, an example of a well balanced full stack army early on in the game might look like this.
Looking at my army composition idea from a different perspective would place it something like this. This perspective displays a minimum/maximum allowance depending on the number of units in the army. Our definition of an army being a group of units at least 7 units in size.
7-10 Unit Army
1 General
1-2 Cavalry (or 1 elite)
1-2 Missile (up to 1 artillery)
4-9 Infantry (up to 1 elite infantry or missile)
11-15 Unit Army
1-2 Generals
1-3 Cavalry (up to 1 elite)
1-4 Missile (up to 2 artillery)
6-10 Infantry (up to 2 elite infantry or missile)
16-20 Unit Army
1-2 Generals
1-4 Cavalry (up to 2 elites)
1-6 Missile (up to 3 artillery)
8-19 Infantry (up to 3 elite infantry or missile)
EDIT - Not sure about traits, but I noticed ancillaries can be moved around the same way. Also, I like TinCow's ideas on giving the dukes some more power, but we should be careful with exactly how much we give them for the sake of game speed.
01-06-2007, 18:22
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Reposted from the other thread in regards to evening out player battle distribution.
Quote:
I like the idea of field marshalls delegating orders to various generals in the field, but here's an idea for us to consider as an alternative to generals being "on leave".
Perhaps generals will be restricted from serving in back to back "foreign campaigns", or offensive movements against an enemy, for a certain time frame following the completion of one campaign.
"Domestic campaigns", or defensive movements within the HRE could be undertaken by anyone with the available manpower, giving even generals at rest from a long campaign the right and freedom to defend their homeland.
Preventing generals from serving year after year in foreign campaigns would prevent them from getting too influential amongst a particular army IC and even out the playing field for battle distribution OOC. A foreign campaign could be described as - an edict permitting acts of war against a foreign power, passed by the council of nobles, and holding a specific goal or series of goals, and a specific theatre. A campaign ends with either the completion of the set goal(s), failure to achieve the goal with the alotted manpower, or the signing of a peace treaty.
Example -
The council passes an edict demanding a Foreign Campaign be established against France, with the intention of "establishing a theatre of operations in the Metz and Dijon regions", "capturing the strategic settlement of Metz" and "defeating France's eastern armies near Metz and Dijon", or "significantly hindering the threat those armies pose by eliminating their commanding nobles".
(((This gives significant freedom of movement to the field marshall and generals involved without giving them so much freedom that we pull another blitzkrieg like with Rome and by turn 50 we've got 20 provices because generals were able to just keep steamrolling across the map.)))
Once a foreign campaign edict passes, Field Marshalls and generals could then place their bid for involvement in the campaign, with the chancellor either constructing or delegating the number and type of armies to be used in the campaign. So if the chancellor delegates three armies to be used, the field marshall who gets chosen to lead the campaign would be able to direct the tactical movements of three generals, who would lead their individual armies into battle when an engagement occurs.
They would be bound to fulfill this campaign to the best of their abilities, and may only offensively target settlements directly outlined in the campaign goals, but may attack any enemy army , regardless of whether it is outlined in the campaign goals, if it is deemed a threat or beneficial to engage at that time, so long as this does not involve leaving the theatre of the campaigns operations. (I.E. they couldn't chase a French army into Toulouse, as that's beyond the Dijon region and out of the campaign's theatre.) These decisions are up to the field marshall to make, and the generals to carry out to the best of their ability.
If they win, great, prestige and influence to the victors! If they lose, well that's another story. If no decisive actions can be acquired by either side and the chancellor deems a peace treaty to be signed to stop the hostilities is necessary, the armies must return home.
Either way, following the end of that foreign campaign, the participating generals will not be able to participate in a foreign campaign for x number of turns or further foreign campaigns have been undertaken.
EDIT - Characters with Field Marshall status should not be excluded from being a 'general' under the direction of another field marshall, but must still wait like everybody else before they can undergo another foreign campaign.
01-06-2007, 18:33
Mount Suribachi
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Just a note to say I will be moving house in teh next few weeks, so the preparations for that, loss of internet, then getting settled in will mean I will be unable to participate in this PBEM for now, though I shall try and keep an eye on it.
01-06-2007, 19:17
GeneralHankerchief
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
First of all, a huge thanks to everyone that slogged through that test run. From what I've read, it did not seem fun to do. Thanks guys, for making it more fun for the rest of us.
Now that I've got M2, I'm ready to jump in and contribute to the game! :charge: Thanks to econ for offering me first dibs at Emperor/Chancellor. Please bear with me if our people suddenly come under attack from five directions (yes, five) as I will be sort of learning on the fly. I guess that's what the Diet's for, eh?
~~~~~~~~~
As far as rules go:
-All sound good, including Lucjan's army proposals. If we're putting battles on very hard mode then I don't want to be hampered by fighting only with half-stacks.
-Two turns per year (same as in RTW) sounds good, and I think it is appropriate. We may miss out on Gunpowder and the New World but then again, in WotS we didn't even hit Marius reforms.
-As far as the screenshot issue (which popped up in WotS Post-Mortem), perhaps we could keep them full size but put them under spoiler tags (or iFrames, courtesy of Tosa). That way we could click them and they would load one-at-a-time. In addition, it keeps that nasty little horizontal scrollbar from showing up.
EDIT: Inbox cleared. Sorry about that.
01-06-2007, 19:19
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
On historical armies, let's follow Lucjan's idea. I propose the following army list for a full historical stack:
1-2 Generals
2-8 knights or dismounted men-at-arms (MAA)/foot knights
0-4 other cavalry (mted crossbows, mtd sergeants, reiters etc)
2-8 spears or pikes; peasants and town guard
0-4 zweihanders, halberds & other swords apart from dismounted knights/MAA
1-6 foot missiles (archers, crossbows, handguns etc)
0-5 artillery
Plus a final provisio: no more than half the stack can be mercenaries (not inappropriate, as HRE used these a lot).
For half a stack, just halve the above list. Stacks less than 7 units strong or in settlements don't have to follow the above.
My proposal is based on Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare army lists for miniatures. His system works in "stands", but I'm going to assume 4 of his stands is roughly one unit. I am going to allow more artillery if we want a siege train for assaulting settlements.
Here's Gore's draft army list for an early HRE army:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
56. MEDIEVAL GERMAN PRINCES: EARLY 12TH TO LATE 15TH.
The Medieval German armies were made up of various local troops from principalities which paid nominal loyalty to the Holy Roman Emperor. The mainstay of German armies continued to be the lance-armed wedging knight. The militia foot, which were drawn from the German cities, were of little use unless placed in a defensive position. There were quality foot, however, as well, notably the Swabian swordsmen and mercenaries. Under Emperor Otto IV, they were the losers to the French at the pivotal Battle of Bouvines in 1214.
The Germans learned to utilize horse archers, using Hungarians as well as mounted trained crossbowmen to support the knights in their attacks. The standard tactics were to hold with the foot in the center, allowing the knights to ride through them to charge as well as retire back through them in retreat. The Swabians and mercenary foot could anchor one flank while knights and light cavalry attacked the other. Generalship sometimes proved more of a hindrence than a help. At Tagliacozzo in 1268, 6,000 Germans under Frederick of Austria fought 3-5,000 French-Italians under Charles I of Naples. The Germans did not bother to scout the battlefield and were surprised by a concealed division of 1,000 men which attacked their rear, effectively surrounding them.
This is a good army for the tough-minded gamer, but can be a problem for beginners.
4-8 Handgunners, HI Warriors(T), HG/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
All -Upgrade Knights to AC @ +2
-1/2 -Upgrade AC to FPC @ +2
All -Upgrade Mercenary Spear to 1/4 Hal, rest P @ + 0
All -Upgrade Militia Spear to Pike no shield @ -1
All -Upgrade Mtd. CB to HG @ + 0
Note: Any Knights may use Wedge. Militia LAI may be in mixed units. Knights and (T) close order foot may use Crusader Mixed Order.
Here's the late period one:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
83. LATER MEDIEVAL GERMAN: EARLY 14TH TO LATE 15TH
The armies of the Holy Roman Empire made extensive use of mercenaries in its countless wars with its neighbors. The German army had to be versatile, it fought so many different types of enemies. To this end, the Emperors employed Hungarians, Low Countrymen, Italians, various pikemen and, later on, handgunners.
Tactically, the Germans can play a very intricate game of enticing an enemy to attack and then counter-charging him with numbers of knights when the enemy is unsupported or disordered. Use the feudal foot, in mixed weapon units, to anchor a flank. The center and other flank can be kept open for flanking maneuvers, skirmishing and deadly charges by the German knights.
This is a good army for any level of player.
1-5 CiC/Generals, FPC Veteran, L/Sh, 3 @ 58/43
Any -Downgrade to Warriors(T) @ -1
4-8 Feudal Knights, FPC Veteran, L/Sh, 3 @ 18
4-12 German Knights, FPC Warriors(T), L/Sh, 3 @ 17
-4 Mounted Crossbowmen, HC Warriors(T), CB, 3 @ 10
-8 Hungarian Cavalry, SC Warriors, B/Sh, 2 @ 4
6-30 Feudal Foot, LAI Poor(T), 1/2 Hal/Pa, 1/2 LSp or CB/Pa, 4
@ 5
-4 Halberdiers, LAI Warriors(T), Hal, 4 @ 5
4-16 Crossbowmen, HI Warriors(T), CB/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
-8 Skirmishers, SI Warriors(T), CB, 2 @ 2
-2 Organ Guns, ARTY Warriors, 3 crew @ 13
After Mid-15th
-12 Pikemen, LAI Warriors(T), Pike, 4 @ 5
-4 -Upgrade to HI @ +1
4-12 Handgunners, HI Warriors(T), HG/Pa, 4 loose @ 7
-2 Bombard, ARTY Warriors, 4 crew @ 16
Note: Any knights may use Wedge. Feudal foot may be in mixed weapon units.
Here's the abbreviations for those interested in the details:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Abbreviations for Weapons:
L= Lance, B= Bow, Sh= Shield, P= Pike, Hal= Halberd, LSp= Long spear, Sp= Spear, Jav= Javelin, Var= Various CB= Crossbow, S= Sling, SS= Staff sling, LB= Longbow, Pa= Pavisse, HG= Handgun, ARTY = Artillery, either bolt/stone throwers or guns..
Abbreviations for Troops:
SI/SC = Skirmish infantry/cavalry.
UI/UC = Unarmored infantry/cavalry.
LAI/LAC = Lightly Armored infantry/cavalry.
HI/HC = Partially Mailed infantry/cavalry.
FMI or FMC = Fully Mailed infantry or knights/cavalry.
AI or AC = Armored infantry or knights/cavalry.
FPI or FPC = Full Plate-Armored infantry or knights/cavalry.
ARTY = Artillery.
The lists all include:
• The minimum and maximum number of stands allowed.
• The unit name or troop type of the stnads.
• The armour class of the figures.
• The morale quality of the troops.
• The weapons carried by the figures in the unit.
• The number of figures per stand (and order, if applicable).
• The points cost per stand (for CiC and Generals points, the first number is for the CiC and the second is for the Generals). Asterisks indicate minimums and maximums of troops allowed if that particular nationality or troop type is used.
Lucjan your idea for distributing battles is interesting but seems rather complex. I'll leave it to individual Chancellors to adopt or not.
Ituralde: yes, people can take agents as avatars. I think we have a diplomat, maybe a spy and a priest. They would all be suitable.
On Dukes etc, TinCow, I think the Duke has a fair amount of power - they allocate settlements to players (after the Emperor has allocated settlements to Dukes) and they can take them away from players who are not their natural sons. Most ancillaries are not tradable and personally, I don't want players to change other player's traits. I suspect the Houses will work fairly well due to the geographic angle - go east, west, north etc. That was quite pronounced in WotS.
Lucjan: I thought of creating more than four Houses, but then we lose the neat family tree division. I'd prefer to keep it to a simple four, like the Aemili etc in WotS. The Emperor should try to balance out the Houses when distributing settlements. I will when allocating avatars. I guess we should include a provision that the Diet cannot allocate settlements - I want these powers not to be democratic.
On the turns per year, I would prefer people hold their noses and just go with the game as it was designed. The passage of events is designed to be a certain speed and I'd rather we enjoy bumping into Mongols, discover gunpowder, go to America etc in a decent time frame than worry too much about temporal paradoxes. I'm not a great fan of 4tpy mods etc.
Mount - good luck with the house move. I hope this PBM lasts a decent interval so you can join it in due course.
EDIT: Nice to have you on board, Emperor GeneralHankerchief (sounds like a character from Spaceballs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
As far as the screenshot issue (which popped up in WotS Post-Mortem), perhaps we could keep them full size but put them under spoiler tags (or iFrames, courtesy of Tosa). That way we could click them and they would load one-at-a-time. In addition, it keeps that nasty little horizontal scrollbar from showing up.
Yes, I was thinking of that - let's use spoiler tags for images. Just wrap the link with [ spoil] and [ /spoil] without the spaces.
01-06-2007, 21:52
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Agreed on the images, but disagreed on this.
Quote:
I thought of creating more than four Houses, but then we lose the neat family tree division. I'd prefer to keep it to a simple four, like the Aemili etc in WotS.
I don't think familial loyalty was always of the utmost importance at the time. Emperors' and kings' biggest enemies were often the next person in line for their inheritance. Medieval loyalties were a spider's web of politics and personal desires rather than the familial inclinations of the old Rome Empire.
To back my statement. Here's a map of the HRE on something of a ducal scale even in its later years. It was even worse earlier on.
I could live with only 4 duchies, but I disagree with keeping the neat family tree division of loyalty. I'd gladly keep track of both the family tree and a "Political Tree", as it is far more likely that something of this nature will and would have developed than expecting blind family loyalties to prevail in the middle ages.
I'm also not convinced that following Terry Gore's example is all that great of an idea.
Under that idea, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this.
2 Generals
2 spears
2 archers
5 knights
4 mounted sargeants
5 artillery
Putting that aside, I also can't see justifying the use of a tabletop game's army draft, which uses stands in its selection method, in direct comparison to TW's "units". I am familiar with tabletop wargames, as I have played several of them and am not ignorant of their mechanics.
My issue with that method is that saying the army draft from terry gore's game allows 2-8 stands of knights and 2-8 stands of spears. This cannot possibly be realistically applied to M2. Because whereas a stand of knights in his game may only contain 5 knights (pulling numbers out of my butt for sake of arguement), a stand of spears in his game may contain 20 spearmen. Therefore, you can see the gross miscalculation in the conversion of gore's stands to TW's units. The numbers just simply don't add up equally at all. 2-8 stands of his knights might only yield you 10-40 knights, but 2-8 stands of spears brings 40-160 spearmen. On normal size settings That adds up, at maximum, to 1 unit of TW's knights and slightly more than 2 units of TW's Spearmen. It just doesn't translate equally in terms of numbers.
Not to mention that seeing an army like the example I put above would be incredibly unhistorical and wildly unbalanced. Mercenaries and/or drafted peasantry/militia made up, from my understanding, the largest part of almost all medieval armies until the development of the English and French professional soldiery.
Terry Gore would have us playing with up to 2 generals, 320 knights, 160 mounted sargeants, 10 catapults, 120 archers and 150 spears. His tactics of cavalry riding through the spears and then retreating back through aren't even applicable with something like this. The cavalry are the line, and an enemy with a decent number of pikes or spears and a few countercharging cavalry would put this army to shame in a heartbeat.
I have to suggest that my own army formation formula, not just the idea, be seriously considered. It gives us a balanced army, it's highly game applicable as it was created specifically with our game in mind, and it tries harder to maintain the historical balance of nobility:peasantry in the army. Though perhaps due to historical context we reduce the required ratio for mercenaries to a 1:1, I really don't see us making much use of them at all, as they're immensely expensive to hire and maintain, and take significantly longer to become available again than our own native troops.
One last note - Unit Sizes, thought to make the game more attractive to everybody we were going to stick with Normal unit sizes, not large?
01-06-2007, 22:34
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
At the risk of repeating myself, a few more notes on the role of the Houses, as TinCow is right, this is the main difference from WotS (although governors are also different). I will integrate these with the first post in due course.
Players are born into a noble House. It is in their blood and cannot be changed. It is determined by which of the four lines on the family tree their avatar falls under (except for the three starter Generals, for whom it is determined by their initial geography).
Houses are led by Dukes. Members of a house do not have to follow their Dukes in terms of politics. However, the Duke can make players a Count by giving them a settlement (granting them +1 influence). Only the Duke of your House (not another Duke) can make you a Count. The Duke can also take away the settlement (and title of count, incl. the +1 influence) unless you are his son by blood.
The Duke of a House is the oldest male in the relevant blood line of the family tree but can never be replaced except on death (so if an older male is adopted or marries in, the newcomer does not become Duke). The Emperor will determine bloodlines and Dukes, in the unlikely event of disputes.
The Emperor controls the initial allocation of settlements (e.g. upon conquest). At the start of the game, we have:
Frankfurt - capital of Franconia, home of the Duke (TBC)
Stafen - capital of Swabia, home of the Duke (Prince Henry)
Nuremburg - capital of Bavaria, home of the Duke (TBC)
Innsbruck - second city of Bavaria
Vienna - capital of Austria, home of the Duke (Leopold)
Bologna - is not assigned to any house
There are no Counts at the start of the game. Capitals of a House need no Counts and cannot be given to them - they belong to the Duke (or his Steward). The Emperor could allocate Bologna to a House at any time, but after that, it will permanently belong to that House. There is an expectation that Franconia will extend north, Swabia west, Bavaria south and Austria east but this should not be followed too rigidly - e.g. the Emperor does not have to give Bologna to Bavaria.
Bavaria and Franconia have no Duke yet, so there are Stewards to act in their place until them. Until there is a Duke, they receive the +2 influence of a Duke. However, they cannot create Counts. (There will be no Count of Innsbruck until Bavaria has a Duke.) The Stewards themselves are not Counts. Like Otto in Innsbruck, they are just soldiers, self-made men of lesser station [think Denethor in Lord of the Rings]. They could be rewarded by being made a Count by their Duke when he spawns, though. And they could marry into the Royal line, potentially becoming the Duke themselves.
It is expected that settlements will not be gifted lightly by the Emperor and by Dukes/Stewards - they should be regarded as precious rewards. There is no particular value to settlements in themselves, however. Avatars will be assigned according to the family tree, so more settlements does not mean more family members in a House - nor does it raise influence (beyond the one-off +1 for being a Count). A player cannot be the Count of more than one settlement. Dukes can have more than one settlement not dispersed to counts (and given the ratio of settlements to generals in a game, this is inevitable), but this provides no particular benefits.
I envisage the Emperor as the "chairman" of the HRE. He will keep order in the Diet and try to make things run smoothly. He has the right to Chancellor once, and ideally should do this on being crowned to make his mark (and allow him to be disinterested). Emperors do not belong to factions - if crowned, they leave their House and - if Duke - are replaced by their eldest son. They are expected to act for the good of the Empire and be impartial, above petty regional politics.
The Chancellor should also act for the good of the Empire, but - having a limited term - is less likely to be impartial. He has no control over settlements or titling Counts. However, he does have some powers of patronage - he can appoint army commanders (+1 military influence) and governors (+1 civic influence).
To be an army commander, you must first be a knight (ie have your deeds in battle recognised by an army commander). All starting avatars are already knights. Then you must command a stack of at least 7 units. And finally, your appointment must be formally posted by the Chancellor. In reconition of your abilities, you get +1 military influence and that, unlike your army, can never be taken away from you.
If you win 5 major battles, you become a Field Marshall and get +2 influence forever (not cumulative with the +1 for army commander). You get to keep your army for 20 turns - the Chancellor may not take away any units without your consent.
To be a governor, you must be designated governor of a settlement by the game for two turns. The Chancellor must then formally post that you are governor and must formally post when you cease to be. While you are governor, you get a +1 influence as a reward for your work [this is not in the FAQ, but I think it's necessary to give the incentive to govern]. You cannot govern a Count's settlement (or a Duke's capital) without him approving your appointment. On appointment, you can set the tax rate and building queue (for buildings only) for 10 turns. The Chancellor must obey this instructions, although he need not build anything - it's just, if he does build anything, it must be the first building on your queue. You can be dismissed (moved out of the settlement) at the Chancellors' whim, but he must formally post your dismissal and must still abide by your build queue until the 10 turns are up. If you are moved out for whatever reason, you are no longer governor and lose the +1 influence bonus. The starting characters are all governors of the settlements they are initally in.
That's all I can think of - let me know if anything is unclear or objectionable.
01-06-2007, 23:06
flyd
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I'd like to officially sign up to be an elector of Franconia.
I can't say I have any issues with the rules as they currently stand.
01-06-2007, 23:39
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I'll capitulate on the ducal houses bit, perhaps I read too far into the distribution of titles and took too much of a M1 look in regards to their being granted to anyone, not just family members.
My only issue stands with the historical armies. As soon as we get a general consensus from our players and potential players, and lay some kind of unanimously acceptable decision on army composition and how we should go about that, I'll be ready to go.
EDIT - Ahh, Flydude! You and I get the chance to play as allies this time around! Welcome to the neighborhood. I'll be playing out Dietrich von Saxony, First Elector of Franconia, hopefully we'll get an avatar for you soon.
01-06-2007, 23:46
StoneCold
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
One question, why not just let Bologna be permanently Emperor's territory? As you have already noted, once a Duke becomes the Emperor he will leave the family and acts in the best interest of the empire, but where will he be based then? Will he just be a free roaming agent then?
Regarding armies and generals. Who is deciding the composition of the Armies? I mean each house will be vying for powers, I would assume armies is an important means to do that, if the chancellor concentrated on building on one Duke's army, the land he conquered will be his, to the detriment of other houses or will that be decided by the Diet? Same thing goes to hiring and disbanding mercs, and the disbanding troops in time of relative peace to maintain budget?
Also how are we to decide on the general to send to the crusade to the Holy Land, how do we armed them? Do we create a new Duchy there? (I am thinking this will be a good way to role play the holy land politics as the I remember the Kingdom of Heaven is almost always begging for troops, crusade to rebuild his kingdom.)
With regards to rotation of generals, I was suggesting that an army unit composition be fixed such that once built, it cannot just rebuild it to full strength by adding new units transferred to the frontline, but instead have to rotate back to base city to rebuild? (R&R) It can only be rebuild using freshly trained units and merging the units to existing unit in the stack? This will remove the rebuilding cheat, which I think it is still there, right? Or is this system too complicated?
01-07-2007, 00:08
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
I could live with only 4 duchies, but I disagree with keeping the neat family tree division of loyalty.
You don't need to be politically loyal to your House (think of the infighting among the Aemili...). Other competing forms of political division - by piety, by judgement, by chivalry etc - can and should emerge. The Houses are just to make the regional element significant, as I believe it was in the HRE. Don’t worry - the map can get messy, as the Emperor could gift Bologna to the Duchy of Franconia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
I'm also not convinced that following Terry Gore's example is all that great of an idea.
Under that idea, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this.
2 Generals
2 spears
2 archers
5 knights
4 mounted sargeants
5 artillery
The 5 artillery are my addition, not Terry Gore's. IIRC, the only artillery in his lists are only 0-2 stands of organ guns very late in the period. So that would be half a M2TW unit (by my 4 stands = 1 unit equation). But I wanted to allow for an "artillery park" and so the 5 max is a way of doing that.
Why don't we say instead:
0-2 artillery for field battles; 0-5 for sieges [if you have more than 2 at the beginning of a field battle, you must retreat them off the field]
Quote:
My issue with that method is that saying the army draft from terry gore's game allows 2-8 stands of knights and 2-8 stands of spears. This cannot possibly be realistically applied to M2. Because whereas a stand of knights in his game may only contain 5 knights (pulling numbers out of my butt for sake of argument), a stand of spears in his game may contain 20 spearmen.
No, I don't think that's true. A stand of knights and spears in his game are roughly comparable to units in M2TW.
Quote:
Mercenaries and/or drafted peasantry/militia made up, from my understanding, the largest part of almost all medieval armies until the development of the English and French professional soldiery.
...I have to suggest that my own army formation formula, not just the idea, be seriously considered.
I am seriously considering your idea. How about this as a synthesis of your proposal and Gore's army lists?
First off, let's take the mercs out of the equation. They are going to be capped by an overall maximum of 1 merc: 1 native unit restriction, so they don't need to complicate the discussion of unit types.
Now,combining your ideas with Gore's Army List, I propose:
For full stack armies (15+ units):
Generals - max 2
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 8 units inc. generals
Total cavalry - maximum 8 units, inc mounted knights and generals
Artillery - maximum 2 units (5 in a siege)
Foot missiles - maximum 6 units including artillery
Zweihanders, halberdiers & other heavy infantry, max 4 units
Spears, pikes, peasants, town militia etc - unlimited
For half stack armies (7-14 units), we just halve the above.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Generals - max 1
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 4 units inc. generals
Total cavalry - maximum 4 units, inc mounted knights and generals
Artillery - maximum 1 units (3 in a siege)
Foot missiles - maximum 3 units including artillery
Zweihanders, halberdiers & other heavy infantry, max 2 units
Spears, pikes, peasants, town militia etc - unlimited
I don't think we need to bother with minima - the key thing is to limit the possibly overpowering elites (knights, cav, missiles, artillery). We want to keep things simple - no Chancellor is going to want to be calculating percentages when putting together armies (I am pretty sure Servius did not).
Note that I think we should cap knights collectively whether mounted or not. A TW knight is essentially what in the day was called a "man-at-arms" i.e. a melee fighter with best practice armour of the time. He usually had a horse and could fight dismounted if needed. M2TW does not allow dismounting, but the point remains.
I think my synthesis restrictions differ from your restrictions only in allowing 40% cavalry, rather than 25%. But I think my more liberal allowances are probably more historical. For example, if we look at the French army at Crecy, Gore puts it at 39% knights. (He puts the English at 62% missiles.) For the Sicilian Normans at Durazzo in 1081, he puts them at 37% cavalry and 42% missiles. We're capping missiles a little tight at 30%, but I think that may be needed against the AI (don't want this to be a turkey shoot).
Here's Gore's version of the French at Crecy:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The Medieval French Army at Crecy - 1346
Stands Troop Type Armour Morale Weapons Strength Total Cost
1 CiC King Phillip FPC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 58 58
1 2iC Duke of Lorraine FPC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 43 43
1 3iC Count of Alencon FPC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 43 43
16 French Knights FPC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 18 288
8 Crossbowmen HI Warrior(T) CB/Pa 4 @ 7 56
6 Archers UI Poor Bow 3 @ 1 6
6 Brigans HI Warrior LSp or Hal
& Pa 4 @ 6 36
9 Bidets UI Poor Jav/Sh 3 @ 2 18
Totals: 550
Gore's version of the Sicilian Norman Army of Robert Guiscard at Durazzo - 1081:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Stands Troop Type Armour Morale Weapons Strength Total Cost
1 CiC Robert Guiscard FMC Elite L/Sh 3 @ 56 56
1 2iC Bohemond FMC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 39 39
1 Lombard General HC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 37 37
16 Norman Milites HC Veteran L/Sh 3 @ 12 192
6 Lombard Cavalry HC Warrior L/Sh 3 @ 10 60
4 Mercenary Cavalry SC Warrior Jav/Sh 2 @ 4 16
8 Spearmen LAI Warrior Sp/Sh 4 @ 5 40
6 Skirmishers SI Warrior B, CB or SS 2 @ 1 6
6 Archers UI Warrior B/Sh 3 @ 3 18
6 Lombard Archers UI Warrior B/Sh 3 @ 3 18
8 Calabrian Foot UI Warrior Jav/Sh 3 @ 3 24
6 Apulian Foot LAI Poor(T) Sp/Sh 4 @ 5 30
4 Italian Crossbow LAI Warrior(T) CB 4 @ 5 20
Totals: 550
01-07-2007, 00:32
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
One question, why not just let Bologna be permanently Emperor's territory?
I think we can just leave it up to the Emperor. If he wants a nice Italian pad, he can keep it. But to be honest, I can't see why he would - using it to play power politics with the Dukes sounds much more fun.
Quote:
Regarding armies and generals. Who is deciding the composition of the Armies? I mean each house will be vying for powers, I would assume armies is an important means to do that, if the chancellor concentrated on building on one Duke's army, the land he conquered will be his, to the detriment of other houses or will that be decided by the Diet? Same thing goes to hiring and disbanding mercs, and the disbanding troops in time of relative peace to maintain budget?
Army composition, recruitment of mercs etc are all decided by the Chancellor (although he should abide by the historical guidelines when finally agreed). Armies won't provide houses with powers, except indirectly through the influence boost for their commanders and the fact that a House which conquers a settlement might be more likely to be gifted it by the Emperor. But the Emperor is free to give it to whoever. I don't want people to begin thinking about civil wars and fighting each other - unlike WotS, we're not going to do that. We're going to fight the AI, not each other.
Quote:
Also how are we to decide on the general to send to the crusade to the Holy Land, how do we armed them? Do we create a new Duchy there? (I am thinking this will be a good way to role play the holy land politics as the I remember the Kingdom of Heaven is almost always begging for troops, crusade to rebuild his kingdom.)
Good question. Let's say crusades, like declarations of war, must be authorised by the Diet EXCEPT when another faction starts one (it's a race, so the Chancellor should not have to wait to start running). We should send more than one general (bitter solo experience here), but let's leave that to the Chancellor as he picks army commanders. On reflection, I don't want the Kingdom of Heaven to be a Duchy (although it's a neat idea) - rather I want it to be the particular concern of the crusaders, the pious and the Chancellor (who presumably is aiming for Jerusalem as one of the victory conditions - as indeed should everyone).
Quote:
With regards to rotation of generals, I was suggesting that an army unit composition be fixed such that once built, it cannot just rebuild it to full strength by adding new units transferred to the frontline, but instead have to rotate back to base city to rebuild? (R&R) It can only be rebuild using freshly trained units and merging the units to existing unit in the stack? This will remove the rebuilding cheat, which I think it is still there, right? Or is this system too complicated?
The rebuilding cheat is much less important now, as you can only build/retrain 3 units per settlement so your whole army can't be resurrected in a turn or two. Plus experience matters less - even at 9 experience, it's only a +3 to stats (which don't always seem to matter in the ways you might expect). Personally, I don't bother with the "no retraining" houserule in M2TW, whereas it was obligatory in RTW/RTR. I think a no reinforcement and compulsory R&R rule would be too much of a constraint on the Chancellor - I have a feeling we will be fighting for our lives here (unlike the Romans in RTR).
01-07-2007, 00:35
Warluster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I'll join!
01-07-2007, 03:12
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
I'll join!
Welcome on board - which "House" do you want to join? Franconia, Swabia, Austria or Bavaria?
01-07-2007, 04:22
Warluster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
House of Swabia please
01-07-2007, 13:09
OverKnight
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Having played M2 a bit and followed WoS, I'm curious how the Chancellor or the Diet will deal with the Pope. WoS with RTR platinum didn't have SPQR edicts but the HRE will have to cope with Papal "suggestions" and the possibility of excommunication. Considering the expansionistic bent of WoS this might pose some problems considering all its neighbors are Catholic (I believe). Also, I believe, the HRE begins the game with low papal standing. There is also the Council of Nobles with their own suggestions, though without the dire consequences for failure.
So will papal and council relation be left up to the Chancellor? Or will the Diet regulate relations with edicts? Will that be the same with Council of Nobles edicts? What would happen if a crusade is called? Could a Duke decide to embark on a crusade by himself with his own army, or would he need permission of the Emperor? If a player has a priest avatar would he direct the movement of the priest or would the Chancellor? Who decides which Cardinal to back in Papal elections?
01-07-2007, 13:26
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
For full stack armies (15+ units):
Generals - max 2
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 8 units inc. generals
Total cavalry - maximum 8 units, inc mounted knights and generals
Artillery - maximum 2 units (5 in a siege)
Foot missiles - maximum 6 units including artillery
Zweihanders, halberdiers & other heavy infantry, max 4 units
Spears, pikes, peasants, town militia etc - unlimited
For half stack armies (7-14 units), we just halve the above.
I like this idea much better. My biggest concerns were that generals were not included in knights, artillery had their own extra slots outside of other missiles, and that "other cavalry" section that could have potentially put an army at 14 units of cavalry if it had 2 generals, all mounted knights and then 4 of those "other" cavalry.
Ok, I'm happy with this. :2thumbsup: Let the gaming commence!
Oh, one more idea though, regarding who decides the composition of new armies.
When an army needs to be raised for offensive action against an enemy. Who should really determine the whole composition of the army?
For this, I think the best idea would be to first of all decide which duke or field marshall is going to be directing the campaign, and then for the duke or field marshall involved to work out the desired army composition with the chancellor. I don't think this would be too difficult, nor would it slow the game. It's a simple exchange of "Chancellor - Ok, we can afford two half stacks, whats your preferable unit list for both in this invasion?" "Duke/Field Marshall - Ok, it's Italy, lots of better quality militia than our own, little cavalry...Give me a solid core of 6 armoured spearmen, 1 general, 3 militia crossbows, 3 mailed knights, and 1 catapult."
Or, alternatively, the dukes/field marshalls of each individual Ducal House can deliberate quietly with each other to develop a "Standard" army composition for their House. That way each Ducal House has a unique army composition and the chancellor, when creating an army to be lead by that house, can simply refer directly to already established doctrine and put an army together according to their standard.
01-07-2007, 13:27
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Double post, sorry.
Dlain brings up some interesting questions.
As far as the Council of Nobles and Papal suggestions. I imagine these things will simple be brought up in the deliberations and the general concensus will make the decision.
Historically kingly or imperial "permission" mattered little in regards to who went on crusade. I'd imagine it would also be something worked out in the deliberations. Crusades carry a heavy risk and a heavy burden. It's not something I think too many players will take lightly and the decision will mostly likely be decided by consensus.
As far as players with priest avatars, I'd imagine they'd be tied to ducal Houses just like everybody else, and their interests would be in maintaining the religion and purging heresy in their home duchy, so movement wouldn't be highly involved with a priestly avatar.
In regards to Papal Elections, I think our chancellors will all have enough sense to back our allies rather than our enemies in the papal elections. Or, at the very least, back whoever looks most likely to win -i.e. the faction with the best standing, most cardinals and the most friends.-
01-07-2007, 14:33
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlain
So will papal and council relation be left up to the Chancellor? Or will the Diet regulate relations with edicts? Will that be the same with Council of Nobles edicts? What would happen if a crusade is called? Could a Duke decide to embark on a crusade by himself with his own army, or would he need permission of the Emperor? If a player has a priest avatar would he direct the movement of the priest or would the Chancellor? Who decides which Cardinal to back in Papal elections?
My personal preference is to follow the missions of the Pope, the Council of Nobles and others. The non-Papal missions provide some fun external direction and goals, while the Papal ones are a break on expansion. (Some people say M2TW is too easy, but I suspect they may be the types who ignore Papal "cease and desist" orders.) The problem is that the timing of the missions will not mesh with that of Diet votes - 10 turn intervals between votes is too long for us to say let the Diet decide. I propose we have a rule that the Chancellor should follow missions to the best of his ability, unless he has the Diet's authorisation to ignore them (which could be obtained in advance).
Thinking about when a crusade happens, perhaps a fun thing would be for the Chancellor to immediately PM all players with general avatars and ask them if they want to join? The Chancellor can appoint the army commander, but must take up to three other generals if there are sufficient volunteers replying within 48 hours. If there are more than three other volunteers, he should take the three most pious. He is allowed to exclude any general whose high command would usurp his pick as army commander. If the crusade is called by HRE, all this could be done during a Diet session and so not delay the game. AI crusades are infrequent enough that pausing the game for the PM exchange would not slow things down sufficiently.
On players who control agents, their deployment would be up to the Chancellor - as is the deployment of generals. I think the trial PBM showed we can't decentralise this PBM to the level of controlling your own avatar's movements without it slowing things to a crawl. But a wise Chancellor would listen to the controlling player's ideas if provided (send them PMs). The best usage of priests may be to form a holy hit squad - send a gang of priests to a godless province (Russia or better yet, the Holy Land), then their piety will shoot up through rapid conversion of the locals. This would give us lots of cardinals (as well as a more receptive Holy Land for crusaders to hold). I'd expect a player controlling a priest to think of this kind of idea and suggest it. Ditto a player controlling a merchant and agitating to go to Timbucku or something. We can put players controlling merchants into regional Houses. I guess we could even let them be made Counts (as we'll have more settlements than generals, eventually), but they would lose the right of refusal of being governor, as non-general avatars can't govern settlements in the game.
On who decides army composition - let's leave it to the Chancellor to keep things moving, but again a good Chancellor would listen to PMs from his generals - he wants them to win their battles. More generally, the Chancellor has to think of a lot of things, so having other players point out or remind him of a specific matter does not hurt.
I'm inclined to revise our historical army composition rule slightly to put the halberd militia in with the unrestricted infantry (their stats don't look too hot & Terry Gore actually allows half his late feudal foot to have halberds).
Conversely, the Landsknecht pikemen look distinctly superior to other spears. Maybe we should have a class of "elite infantry", comprising dismounted knights, Zweihanders, Forlorn Hope and Landsknechts capped at 8. The dismounted knights are therefore subject to two caps - on total knights and on elite infantry.
So we have, for full stack armies (15+ units):
Generals - max 2
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 8 units inc. generals
[The class of knights is therefore: Dismtd Feudal knights; Dismtd Imperial knights; Dismtd Gothic knights; Mailed knights; Feudal knights; Imperial knights; Teutonic knights; General’s bodyguard; Gothic knights; plus any mercenary knights included those great dismounted knights you get in the Holy Land.)
Total cavalry - maximum 8 units, inc mounted knights and generals
[Non-knightly cavalry includes: Mounted crossbowmen ; Reiters; Merchant cavalry; Mounted sergeants]
Artillery - maximum 2 units (5 in a siege)
Foot missiles - maximum 6 units including artillery
[Foot missiles include: Peasant archers; Peasant crossbowmen; Crossbow militia; Pavisse crossbowmen; Arquebusiers; Handgunners ]
Total elite heavy infantry - max 8
[Elite infantry comprises Zweihander; Forlorn Hope; Landsknechts; dismounted knights and equivalent mercs - e.g. Galllowglass?]
So what happen's when a player's priest finally got elected to Pope? I am guessing the player's avartar is considered as dead and have to choose another avatar?
01-07-2007, 16:46
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I'm fine with letting the halberd militia into the infinite column, but I still think our "elite" heavies should be reflected as being of such a high status by being restricted to a lesser prevalance in the army. I'll meet you half way at 5 for a full stack, 3 for a half stack, as opposed to 8 and 4.
Also -
Just as a historical note, here's the old german titles of nobility and our equivilants.
Political
Elector = Kurfurst
Count = Graf
Duke = Herzog
Prince = Prinz
Emperor = Kaiser
Military
Knight = Ritter
Field Marshal = Generalfeldmarshal
01-07-2007, 17:19
TinCow
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold
So what happen's when a player's priest finally got elected to Pope? I am guessing the player's avartar is considered as dead and have to choose another avatar?
Actually, I think that would make for a great roleplaying experience. The person playing the Pope would just have to make his or her story fit in with Papal actions.
01-07-2007, 17:33
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
I'll meet you half way at 5 for a full stack, 3 for a half stack, as opposed to 8 and 4.
Make it 6 and 3, and we have a deal. (5 would be fine for swords, but shoe-horning the Landsknecht pikemen in makes it a little tight). Six would also allow all our knights to be dismounted, except the generals (who can't be).
Quote:
Just as a historical note, here's the old german titles of nobility and our equivilants.
Great, thanks. :2thumbsup: I'll put them in the rules (when I get around to editing them). I guess they should be optional. Personally, I like Ritter, Graf, GeneralFeldmarshall, Prinz and Kaiser. But I prefer Elector to Kurfurst and especially Duke to Herzog (makes me think of Zionism for some reason...). Kanzler for Chancellor would not sound good, either.
In terms of mods, there seem to be at least three for the vices and virtues:
I haven't tried any, although reading about them, I'm inclined to Medifix. It seems to fix more than CherryVanilla, but seems to have less new traits "to be beta-tested" than Sarastro's mod. I think it is a priority to get the vices and virtues in good shape, as they will be very important in role-playing our characters (we don't want a mob of pagan magicians etc).
The other modding thing I am looking into are the two-handed weapon fixes, but twcenter is down right now so I haven't got much further than a recommendation for zxiang's 2h fix (with some saying it is overpowered). I think with battle map tweaks like this, we can mod as we go (the stats are loaded fresh each time you load the game). By contrast, change vices and virtues files mid-game could mess up somethings (the triggers are set in the savegame).
We only need to fix on mods by Friday when the first Chancellor actually starts playing - the political rules though we should agree on by Monday 6pm, when the Diet opens.
01-07-2007, 18:44
DMu
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Hi,
I'd like to play as a member of the House of Austria
I can only play battles on weekends though, so maybe most of my battles would end up being auto resolved.
Thanks
01-07-2007, 21:25
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Ok, 6 and 3 is fine. We've got a deal. :2thumbsup:
01-07-2007, 22:04
Braden
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Gentlemen!
I have some wonderous news...
...I have and CAN play Medieval 2!
My laptop is more than able to handle is, although I've only tested with one custom battle and two turns of an English campaign its been ok so far.
using Large size units as well.
Haven't looked yet at the above rules etc but it looks likely that I could be available to take a more active part in the new PBeM than I thought.
Also, one of my close friends (just back in the country) is very interested in the format we're using and whilst he's running M2 he may be interested in joining us. :2thumbsup:
Will keep you updated on that and he may well just register and post anyway.
Currently downloading the 1.1 patch for M2 so I start bang up to date.
01-07-2007, 22:32
Warluster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
When we download the patch, where do we put it?
01-08-2007, 00:10
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Great to hear Braden! We were hoping you'd be able to find a way.
As far as patch 1.1 Download it to anywhere, extract it to the file it's downloaded in, then click on the icon that looks like a box of books to further unpack a bunch of files, then, finally, click the setup icon to install the patch to the medieval 2 directory automatically.
01-08-2007, 00:23
GeneralHankerchief
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
This PBM should really have a subtitle.
King of the Romans - or "The Blind Leading the Blind"
It will definitely be... erm... interesting.
01-08-2007, 00:35
Braden
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
What I'm looking for now are the files to remove those darned green arrows and over large banners!!
they're not where they used to be and where I think they should be I can only find the arrows mentioned and its not a TRUE/FALSE choice is 0/1 :dizzy2:
Been playing an HRE campaign, upto approx turn 12 (V. hard campaign/Hard battles) and its slow going. Venice has decided to attack me but so far I've repulsed them from my towns and castles...where's the blasted Pope when you actually NEED him?!?
So, apart from one loss at a rebel held town I'm not doing "to" badly all things considered. What I am happy with is the way my laptop is coping but I do need a new keyboard as I'm struggling with the laptop one atm (no number pad).
01-08-2007, 02:39
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Hi Braden - welcome on board! Which House do you want to join?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden
What I'm looking for now are the files to remove those darned green arrows and over large banners!!
The answers to your questions are in the stickied M2TW FAQ in the Citadel, ie
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Q: How do I get rid of banners?
A:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorn Is
In the medieval2.preference.cfg in the video section there is a line that says
showbanners = 1
turn this to 0
Q: How do I get rid of the green circles under the selected unit(s)?
A: In medieval2.preference.cfg, there is a line that says:
disable_arrow_markers = 0
Just change the 0 to 1
I tried turning them both off, but then found it very hard to make out my units and in particular which ones I had selected. I now have the green circles on, banners probably still off.
01-08-2007, 02:39
Ignoramus
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I'll think I'll join the House of Swabia.
Just one question. What happens to the Chancellor when he finishes his term as Chancellor? It would see that at the moment their is no advantage to be Chancellor. Because when you become Chancellor you have to resign your duchy and leave your house.
Historically, however, the Emperors were Dukes themselves, so what is going to persuade people to give up the Duchies to become Chancellor?
Also, when are we going to start? I am just asking this because at the moment the summer holidays are here in Australia and I'll be able to spend more time on the PBM for the next 3 weeks.
01-08-2007, 08:23
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I think when Chancellors are done they're graced with the title "ex-chancellor" and return to their old position in the duchy.
Unless I missed something.
01-08-2007, 09:24
OverKnight
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
If you'll have a noob I'd love to play.
I've got M2 1.1 at home, time to kill at work (most nights), and internet at both places.
I've played M2 a decent amount and RTW a lot. I'm not an expert at file sharing, image hosting or using enriched text or pictures in a post but I'll bring myself up speed. Being avatar-less will allow me some time to get my feet wet.
As for house, it looks like Bavaria or Franconia could use another member, feel free to assign me to either to balance the numbers. Given from what I've heard about HRE in the game all fronts should be "interesting".
Time to go brush up on my history.
01-08-2007, 10:34
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I'm thoroughly pleased and impressed with the initial turnout for the game now that we've greatly simplified the rules and stuck to the wots tradition for the majority of the pbem mechanics. Nice job everybody for pulling this together, particularly econ, whose organisational skills and rationale continue to make their mark on all of our new ideas, bringing everybody into a pleasing success story.
01-08-2007, 10:40
Ignoramus
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Yes, econ's been the heart and soul of both the WoTS and the King of the Romans.
One question. How do the different ducal houses interact? Can two houses form an alliance to damage the other houses etc? What exactly will happen?
Also, I was thinking that perhaps we ought to add a few other cities as "required" for victory.
Milan - A continual thorn in the Empire's side, it is hard to argue against its require capture.
Rome(?) - The Pope and the Empire were often at each other's throats concerning the authority of the Church. *Also, it might be interesting to see where the Papacy heads off to next*
01-08-2007, 11:24
OverKnight
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I can see adding Milan as a goal, I believe it was considered part of the HRE at some point, but conquering Rome would bring down the rest of the Catholic world on HRE. I believe if Rome is taken the Papal States (where ever they might end up) initiate crusade after crusade to retake it. While it might be fun to take on the world in the late campaign, leaving Rome alone provides for more opportunities for Crusades to exotic places and not having half the avatars in the PBEM burned at the stake for Heresy. Inquisitors are not fun, particularly with weakened assassins in 1.1.
Of course I would love to see the debate that occurs in the Diet when the "Let's take Rome" motion is proposed.
01-08-2007, 13:14
TinCow
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Are there any patches out that allow us to change the Faction Heir? I would hate for a non-blood heir to inherit in our game since that would throw the roleplaying for a spin.
01-08-2007, 14:56
OverKnight
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I poked around with google, no joy. I've been following the official forums and I haven't heard anything as well. Considering that a lack of heir selection generates a lot of posts even just a hint of a Mod to fix this would generate some buzz.
Hope that link works, I'm still learning on the fly here.
We could use a strict no adoption policy but besides cutting down on potential avatars, this doesn't prevent the AI from setting a King's heir as his brother if no son has reached maturity. Unfortunately the selection of the heir never resets unless the heir dies. Sending off unwanted heirs to a noble death also cuts down on potential avatars and doesn't guarantee a logical (to us) selection of the next heir.
We could bite the bullet and just keep track ourselves of who *should* be Emperor. This may cause some confusion title wise however.
Considering the Chancellors will be the prime movers, I hope the wonky heir selection won't cause too many problems.
01-08-2007, 15:44
Dutch_guy
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Well, this one simply looks to good to pass up - I'd like to join.
I'd like to join the house of Franconia, as it's the only house which is still short a player in comparison with the other houses and because I reckon any house with Lucjan 'll be exiting enough ~;)
PS: If we're going to do this PBM (more or less...) exactly like we did the WotS we should think about a second library (could call it a scriptorium, for role playing purposes). Don't worry, TinCow, I'm not hinting at anything at all, but it would be a good addition to the game. And I'd like to, maybe in combination with someone else ?, try and set something up which 'll serve the same purpose as TinCow's excellent Library did for the WotS.
I'd join, but the mods im using may not be applicable...
I can get rid of them easily...so if youre in need of another general who can write about himself badly, but should be able to roleplay his traits, look no further! (I hope i/someone get/s an insane guy)
What happens, lets say if someone is Heinreich, and he dies, are they out for the rest of it?
01-08-2007, 16:06
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Welcome on board, Dutch_guy!
Pevergreen - why don't you sign on to be the elector of a particular house? It will take a while to get enough generals for everyone, by which time you can decide if it is worth uninstalling the mods you're using. (We'll be largely using vanilla M2TW.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I would hate for a non-blood heir to inherit in our game since that would throw the roleplaying for a spin.
I think we'll just have to bite the bullet and role with the punches, to mix my metaphors. In reality, the HRE emperor was elected (rather like our Chancellor) rather than determined by blood alone, so we are already inhabiting an alternate universe. A "weird" heir might even be fun from a role-playing point of view - a pretender? an unknown child stepping out of the shadows? a disgraced primo genitor heir? a kid pulling a sword from a stone? The possibilities are endless!
01-08-2007, 16:14
pevergreen
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
The "mods" i have are fixes. VnV fix, Ballista Tower fix, 2h fix, Ai diplomacy fix. All easily erased with one unpacking.
Ill be whatever would let me be a general. Cant wait to do a battle report... (maybe i should do an AAR...like Beefeaters, but i dont want to copy his..)
[Sorry for the spam]
So sign me up for whatever house will have me.
Off to bed now, 1:13 am.
01-08-2007, 17:06
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I've updated the rules to reflect some of the discussion. Still undecided on the mods.
On the Chancellor - I think there's a huge incentive to be Chancellor, as you are the one playing the game! He'll keep a +1 bonus, but that is less attractive to Dukes, Princes, Emperors etc who already get that.
Players whose avatars died will be given new ones subject to availability.
Houses could well ally, but they can't really hurt each other directly. No civil wars - we're fighting the AI not each other!
01-08-2007, 18:56
SwordsMaster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Hey all,
I'd like to join this thing, but I will need time off and won't be participating as actively as others might. If this is ok, I'd like to join the House of Bavaria.
Cheers
01-08-2007, 20:10
Ituralde
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Ituralde: yes, people can take agents as avatars. I think we have a diplomat, maybe a spy and a priest. They would all be suitable.
Sorry to come back to this again but I don't think I've fully grasped the concept yet. So agents like diplomats, spies and priests can be taken by players. Will this elevate the respective agents to the ranks of an elector? What powers will the player have over his avatar? Since agents can not fight battles and also not become governors or chancellor (correct me if I'm mistaken) what incentive is there to choose an agent over a general if both are available. As much as I like the role-playing possibilities offered by some of the agents, I don't know yet if I'm willing to sacrifice my right of refusal for a general with his huge potential of character development, governorship and last but not least the abiltiy fo fight battles, for any of them.
Maybe someone could shed some light into the whole thing for me as I'm really a little confused right now. For example, the starting agents have not been assigned as avatars to any person although they clearly could be.
On another not I'd like to thank econ21 for setting this up and reflecting my obsession with the Italian City States in the first post of this thread.
Also I'd like to extend a courtous greeting to Tamur, First Elector of Austiria. I might just stick with you as long as we get our hands on Bologna. ~;)
Cheers
Ituralde
01-08-2007, 21:54
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Ituralde - I think you are right, a general is much better as an avatar; that's why I have not assigned any agents as avatars. Agents would be electors, could even be Counts, but not Chancellors, I think. If you had an agent, you could give suggestions on his usage to the Chancellor, but ultimately it would be his decision how to employ you.
In Will of the Senate, several people took agents as avatars - typically they were players who would not be able to fight battles (e.g. they had not installed the mod). But some switched avatars to generals later on.
01-08-2007, 23:01
Braden
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Econ,
I'm willing to take an active part in this and I think I should be able to handle the Avatar you've offered me, however, I'll confirm my details tomorrow once I've had a chance to fully update myself on the rules you've set so far and any other info on the relating threads.
I also want to finish my WotS story :no:
01-08-2007, 23:27
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Good to have so many people on board, I think it's time to start conniving.
01-08-2007, 23:29
GeneralHankerchief
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Good to have so many people on board, I think it's time to start conniving.
You had better not be conniving while I'm Kaiser [1], or you get put on a crusade with only a unit of peasants!
[1]Does not apply if said Kaiser is included in said activities :laugh4:
01-09-2007, 00:14
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Unfortunately, Tamur has had to drop out because of work commitments. But Braden has agreed to take up the role of Leopold, Duke of Austria. Like GeneralHankerchief, I invited Braden to take on this important role because he was very active in the Will of the Senate but just missed his turn to be Consul.
01-09-2007, 00:32
TinCow
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
PS: If we're going to do this PBM (more or less...) exactly like we did the WotS we should think about a second library (could call it a scriptorium, for role playing purposes). Don't worry, TinCow, I'm not hinting at anything at all, but it would be a good addition to the game. And I'd like to, maybe in combination with someone else ?, try and set something up which 'll serve the same purpose as TinCow's excellent Library did for the WotS.
We'll definitely need an Imperial Library and I'll be happy to do it up in the same style as the last one. It seemed to work pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Houses could well ally, but they can't really hurt each other directly. No civil wars - we're fighting the AI not each other!
I think we have a lot of opportunities for friction between the houses, if people roleplay their loyalties properly. Houses could gain substantial benefits by having one of their number elected Chancellor, if the Chancellor purposefully gives his House more improvements and better armies/commands. In addition, a House with a strong electoral base could force through legislation that hinders other Houses. I can even foresee Counts 'defecting' to other houses for better lands/commands in exchange for their electoral support or somesuch.
However, since I can't see how the lands 'owned' by the avatars will have any real affect on their quality, this will have to be done strictly on roleplaying. Hopefully we can start out with more competition and less internal cooperation than we did in the WOTS. Cooperation is great for the faction as a whole, but it provides far less PBM entertainment.
01-09-2007, 00:47
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I agree with TinCow in regards to the natural friction that will occur, and think it will only add to the pbem. Also, if you want any help with the library. I'm open. :beam:
In regards to GH and my conniving. Just because I'm conniving doesn't mean I'm following Servius's style of conniving. Remember, this is a new pbem. New character. ~;)
Check out the deliberations thread. This Dietrich von Saxony guy doesn't seem too bad. Sounds like he has a thing for the Kaiser's daughter though. :laugh4:
01-09-2007, 06:22
Grande Orso
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
After following the WotS almost in its entirity, and being a faithful reader of these boards for quite a long time, I have finally decided to register and express my interest in this new PBEM, which I find a most fascinating way of extending this game's lifespan.
With that said, I realize that, at this point in time, I am a newbie to the boards, and for all you know, an inexperienced troublemarker. Hence, I submit to you the request of partaking in this as a member of the House of Bavaria or Swabia (the latter would probably be best, as I see the Bavaria has already 4 "registered" voters, making it a bit too crowded).
01-09-2007, 06:54
Warluster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Welcome to the .org Grande orso, I hope you enjoy the other PBM's here as well.
01-09-2007, 08:32
OverKnight
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I've noticed that many of you have your avatar's name underneath your user name. How do you do that? It says in the FAQ you can enter something in the Custom User Text box. I either can't find that when I edit my profile or I don't have it because I'm new. Worse comes to worse I can just put Third Elector for Bavaria in my sig.
Anyway, back to reviewing edicts.
01-09-2007, 09:50
pevergreen
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
You can once you're a full member, only takes a few weeks.
EDIT: Yey! 300!
01-09-2007, 10:46
Ituralde
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Well King Tamur is gone. Hail to King Braden. Or rather Duke as the other Houses tend to call him.
I just want to reaffirm that I'll be playing for the House of Austria as second elector. My desires for Italy will be noticable in my role-play, so no need to make any changes ooc.
I'd like to take this thread to introduce my cast as second elector of Austria. I have seen that we are supposed to play nameless electors but from a role-playing perspective giving my 'nameless elector' a name and a personality helps me a great deal. I hope this is not against the rules. If it is please notify me and I will return everything back to usual.
My 'nameless elector' will be the old retainer Conrad von Schüsselen, who has followed Emperor Heinrich in his recent campaigns to Italy, hence his obsession with the Italian City States and his disgust for the traitorous Milanese who will have to be brought back under Imperial control.
Once a suitable avatar within the game is found I'm planning on letting the already not very healthy Conrad die of natural causes and have my new avatar be a scholar of the late Conrad von Schüsselen, who may be influenced by his mentor but will be a whole new personality in all other aspects.
I would also like to apply for the post of the spy Rainald. I won't have too many requests right now I'd just like to take him for some Spy Diary I have been thinking of for the Roleplay thread. If no one else wants to act as him that is.
My only request to GH would be to not get him killed to quickly.
I would like to take him on as second avatar and still play my role as second elector of Austria. Please let me know whether you have any objections against this.
I have also PM'ed Braden as my landlord to outline some of my roleplay-ideas. So check your inbox Braden.
Cheers!
Ituralde
01-09-2007, 10:50
pevergreen
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
his disgust for the traitorous Milanese who will have to be brought back under Imperial control.
All Hail those who join me in hating Milan! (Check my sig)
:bow: Blood Relative of my House. :bow:
01-09-2007, 11:12
Ignoramus
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I reckon that we're going to have some serious fun in the competition between the ducal houses.
Bavaria will look to conquer Venice and Milan. Austria also Venice and Hungary. Franconia Danes and Poland. Swabia, the best house, will have France.
Econ21, I think we should have a Duchy of Swabia meeting sometime. Any thoughts?
Also, when is the game starting? I can't wait to get stuck into this.
01-09-2007, 11:25
pevergreen
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
With the Houses, they should meet and the Head of Houses (if there are any) should be able to say something like
We need to stop Swabia, they are getting too powerful, ill give a general troops to take a settlement to stop Swabia's advances. It could add to the Roleplaying.
Also, in Beefeater's HRE AAR, the way he outlined the houses, that would be a really good idea.
01-09-2007, 11:41
Warluster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Swabia, too powerful? polish my shoes!!!! Your just jealous of our great and noble house!
01-09-2007, 12:10
pevergreen
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Pah! It was for an example.
01-09-2007, 12:19
Warluster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
lucky, dang,dang,dang. or was it? dang,dang,dang. You are forgiven
01-09-2007, 12:31
OverKnight
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I think I should call my nameless elector: Rotes Hemd. According to babelfish that's german for Red Shirt.
01-09-2007, 13:47
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Poland? Blasphemy. Why engage in hostilities against so noble a people? Besides..they'll be instrumental in preventing a strong Russia or Hungary and absorbing the initial wave of Mongols. Poland should be treated as a friend and ally.
On the other hand, perhaps Franconia could pick up where the saxons left off and turn a colonial eye to England.
01-09-2007, 13:52
pevergreen
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
I propose that the House of Pwnage..sorry Austria turn away from Hungary (getting trade rights etc) and snaps the %!*& of Milan. Failing that, i never liked france much... or england... but Portugal is uber!
01-09-2007, 17:30
Grande Orso
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
As much as I agree with the necessity of having a "name" for your nameless elector, won't you run into some issues down the road when you will be given a named avatar? Just my 2 cents.
01-09-2007, 17:55
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
We never had any problems with identity confusion in WotS when avatars died or switched, and having a name is really an integral part of rp. I think it'll be fine.
Nice observation though.
Just noticed that just about everybody from the old WotS game changed their avatar with the new year...I feel left out, but there's something to be said for tradition!
01-09-2007, 17:57
Grande Orso
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Sorry for double posting, but since I am not allowed to edit posts as of yet, this is the only way I can add a question to my previous message.
We have all seen that the diet as been quite active in these last few days, with a large amount of edicts being proposed. In order to keep track of all of these, I have been copy and pasting them in a word document. Would it be acceptable for my "character" to provide a summary of what has happened so far, in order to create a bit of order in these proceedings?
Or perhaps, it would be best that I send a private message to somebody that has full member rights, so that he can use HTML scripting to make everything more readable?
GO
01-09-2007, 18:01
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Grande Orso - in Wots, I used to periodically update a list of the edicts. I was planning to do one tonight (it's hard to believe, but the Diet's only been open a day!). If you PM me your list of motions, it would save me some work. I'll insert them into the first post with accompanying proposer and seconders. Cheers. :2thumbsup:
01-09-2007, 18:03
SwordsMaster
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Actually, I also have a question: Which mods are we using and where can I get them?
01-09-2007, 18:04
Lucjan
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
*swoons over the number of new players and their activity*
Ahh, this is going to be an epic one econ. I can see it already.
:charge: To war! :charge:
01-09-2007, 18:27
econ21
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Actually, I also have a question: Which mods are we using and where can I get them?
I'm still chewing over that one. We have until Friday - when GH can start playing - to decide.
Thinking about it, I am inclined to just stick to the patched game as it is. That way, it's less fuss for players and hopefully we can benefit from the patch that is coming in February - if it is savegame compatible, as the first patch was. (With WotS, we got locked into a version of the mod that became obsolete.)
We may encounter a few irritating bugs, but there may be ways round them. For example, using cheat codes if some vices and virtues get horribly messed up. If the two-handed weapon bug gets unbearable, players fighting battles could mod the EDU file to circumvent it.
I was tempted by mention of modding the diplomacy to make the AI less psychotic, but it may be easier just to accept that if we want good relations, it is going to cost us florins.
01-09-2007, 20:47
Tamur
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Though I am out of commission for a good long while, I am definitely looking forward to reading and keeping up on this! Looks like it will be quite the adventure ~:)
01-09-2007, 21:02
TinCow
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I'm still chewing over that one. We have until Friday - when GH can start playing - to decide.
Thinking about it, I am inclined to just stick to the patched game as it is. That way, it's less fuss for players and hopefully we can benefit from the patch that is coming in February - if it is savegame compatible, as the first patch was. (With WotS, we got locked into a version of the mod that became obsolete.)
We may encounter a few irritating bugs, but there may be ways round them. For example, using cheat codes if some vices and virtues get horribly messed up. If the two-handed weapon bug gets unbearable, players fighting battles could mod the EDU file to circumvent it.
I was tempted by mention of modding the diplomacy to make the AI less psychotic, but it may be easier just to accept that if we want good relations, it is going to cost us florins.
It would definitely be best if we used as few mods as possible. The extensive intallation routine limited our available Lower House members in WOTS. However, I would like you to give serious consideration to something modifying the V&Vs. Given how important they are to role-playing and how absurd they are in the vanilla game, we will all end up having to ignore our avatars' attributes and use them as mere portraits. I think that would be a shame.
We could certainly use the cheat codes to change the V&Vs, but that's going to get really messy. It will only take a few turns before we've all got Poor Taxman and other lovelies. Who decides which ones are legit and which to kill? Installing one mod is not a big deal, so I think if we can find a good V&V patch (I have no idea if there is one, haven't looked) we should use it. Everything else we can live with as is.
01-09-2007, 21:07
Dutch_guy
Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread
Plus, I think we should seriously consider installing a fix for the 2H animation bug. I daresay we'd want to miss out on the Dismounted Gothic knights, forlorn hope and Zweihanders - which are completely useless given the situation...
