OOC Thread

[Privateerkev]

How often does the Chancellor have to check the status thread? Once a "term"? Every turn? Somewhere in between?

In KotR, it seemed that you basically had one chance a term to get your orders in. After that, even if settlements were lost or taken, or avatars died, build queues and army orders were up to the whim of the Chancellor.

If you got your build queue and army order in before voting ended, the Chancellor had to obey it. If you turned in late, or tried to give revised orders, it was his discretion.

Are we doing that now? If I edit my status post, can GH ignore it? Or is he bound to follow it? Does this put too much on the Chancellor to have him check it every turn? I have never been Chancellor so I don't have a good grasp as to what is "too much".

[GeneralHankerchief]

Guys,

I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to drop out. My disk drive has just decided to stop reading on me. It's been like this for a little less than a week now, and while there were some days where it's worked, it hasn't done squat for the past two days. After searching online, it seems like there's nothing I can do but bite the bullet and get a new one.

I've contacted AussieGiant, and, if he is willing, he will step in and take my place as Chancellor. Those of you who know him from KotR know that he is an extremely competant Chancellor.

This is across the board, meaning I've got to drop out of the Hotseats too. I don't know if this will be fixed in time for me to take part in the Successor game.

Again, very sorry guys. Good luck with your trialling.

GH

[Privateerkev]

That sucks GH. :(

I hope you can get it fixed in time for the Successor game.

[Cecil XIX]

Sorry to hear that GH. Here's hoping you get back quickly.

[Ramses II CP]

You'll be missed GH, come back soon.. Hard drive space tends to be fairly cheap these days, but it's all relative when you're in college. I remember agonizing over whether to purchase the corn chips or the bulkier but nastier ramen noodles.

[Privateerkev]

I remember agonizing over whether to purchase the corn chips or the bulkier but nastier ramen noodles.

I used to purchase all of my Ramen once a month on 10-cent Ramen day. I would bring a 10-dollar bill, fill the cart up with a hundred packs, and then roll it up to a horrified cashier.

[Zim]

That's too bad, GH. I'll miss you here and in the hotseats. Hope you make it back soon.

[The Lemongate]

On a related note, what about the chancellor thread? Is it still up and should I still go grab that save and kick Frankfurt over?

[TinCow]

I was asked to comment on this post:

How often does the Chancellor have to check the status thread? Once a "term"? Every turn? Somewhere in between?

In KotR, it seemed that you basically had one chance a term to get your orders in. After that, even if settlements were lost or taken, or avatars died, build queues and army orders were up to the whim of the Chancellor.

If you got your build queue and army order in before voting ended, the Chancellor had to obey it. If you turned in late, or tried to give revised orders, it was his discretion.

Are we doing that now? If I edit my status post, can GH ignore it? Or is he bound to follow it? Does this put too much on the Chancellor to have him check it every turn? I have never been Chancellor so I don't have a good grasp as to what is "too much".

I hadn't thought about the timing of build queues and whatnot. Since players can legally change their orders about their army/garrison composition at any time, I assumed the Chancellor would be checking at the start of every turn. A quick scan could show whether anyone had edited their post since the previous turn, so that wouldn't be too onerous a duty. If the Chancellor is thus checking every turn, I see no reason that the other stuff, like build queues, couldn't be changed at any time as well. It might be a good idea to PM the Chancellor if you do, though, to make sure he notices.

If this stuff turns out to be too much of a burden on the player who is the Chancellor, we can tone it down later. That's part of what I want to examine with the test game.

[OverKnight]

I am assuming that if PK and Ignoramus wish to turn the civil war hot, they would have to besiege Dijon during 1146 (the current turn) before assaulting in 1148. If this is the case, we might have our first PvP (well really PvAI of same faction) battle in that year.

Is this true?

[Privateerkev]

I am assuming that if PK and Ignoramus wish to turn the civil war hot, they would have to besiege Dijon during 1146 (the current turn) before assaulting in 1148. If this is the case, we might have our first PvP (well really PvAI of same faction) battle in that year.

Is this true?

Ig has a ballista...

^_^

[OverKnight]

Ah. . .I'll have to remember to study the compostion of our own armies.

So, we have the possibility of a France vs France battle. Since one side would be AI led, how do we handle this?

I'm assuming, since it's player vs AI, either Ignoramus or PK will fight a custom battle reflecting the two armies, including walls, and then show a screen shot of the casualties? It would then be up to me to deduct those losses. First, in the Swabian Civil war, how were units removed? Second, I'm not sure how to implement damage to the town, i.e. holes in the wall and damaged buildings.

[Privateerkev]

A Ballista will have trouble knocking down walls. We'll just blast the gate open. So you won't have to worry about repairing damage.

[TinCow]

All PvP battles in the Test Game are AI Battles for speed and efficiency. That should be taken into consideration in any decision on whether to attack or whether to build siege equipment.

If they are capable of assaulting this turn (by any means other than spies) they can do so. Since I'm taking care of the PvP battles for the Test Game via the AI Battle system, anyone who wants to initiate one should do the following:

1) Move their army adjacent to an enemy stack (or city) in accordance with the rules.
2) Send me a PM telling me they want to attack and initiate a PvP battle.

I will then resolve it by the AI Battle sytem and edit upload a new saved game that reflects the results. Unfortunately, I won't be home from work until late tonight, though, so I cannot resolve any battle in this format until tomorrow night. I don't imagine this will make a difference, though, as this turn they would be assaulting garrisons that cannot be moved or reinforced (I think) by other players. If I am wrong about that, let me know.

[Ituralde]

This brings me to another question. Although I'm not playing this should come up pretty soon. How is sieging as such handled? I mean once the enemy army is in front of Dijon it should be besieged, right? Meaning its garrison should loose troops, it can not be reinforced from the outside, and it can't train any soldiers or build any buildings. How much of these things will be taken into account when a city is besieged in a Civil War?

[TinCow]

A PvP siege falls under the rules of a PvP battle: thus, it's up the umpire of the battle. If the umpire is me, this is how I would do it (and am doing it during the Test Game):

Attacks can be made at any time, as long as the attacking army has seige engines of some kind, either artillery or the typical ladders/rams/towers type. I will not allow spies to open gates in PvP, however I will allow betrayals like deguerra had planned at Staufen during the Cataclysm. Every turn that the besieging army remains next to the besieged city, I will allow it to use the same number of build points that it would get by besieging an AI faction city. Those build points can be turned into ladders/rams/towers in exactly the same manner. If the besieger decides to attack, they will have access to whatever siege engines they have built and whatever artillery they have brought with them.

For instance, Ignoramus could attack Dijon immediately because he has a ballista which could open a way into the city. If he attacked right now, he would have to rely exclusively on the ballista to get inside. If he waited a turn, he could build a few ladders, etc. to go along with the ballista.

I will ignore attrition because it would be a pain in the butt and TW-style garrison attrition is absurd anyway. Historically, besieging armies almost always took more losses due to attrition than besieged armies due to their much large size and lack of access to the stockpiles inside the city/castle.