OOC Thread

[Privateerkev]

Correct, though I think the usual method for a rule dispute would require some kind of IC claim to it first. We can skip that for the Test Game, but the rule dispute power is meant to be used IC, so it should be handled as such in the real game. First, someone claims a rules dispute. Then it is adjudicated by whoever is proper under the circumstances.

So, then are we waiting for TLG to make a ruling or are we just going to assume he'd rule in favor of the King?

As for when the Chancellor posts a save, I think that should be completely OOC without regard for when the Chancellor's allies' players are online. Posting the save is a OOC mechanic and should be treated as such. Like you said, doing otherwise will probably lead to OOC hurt feelings. I like that characters get sneaky and underhanded with each other. But I don't want players getting underhanded and sneaky with each other.

[OverKnight]

If I'm ever Chancellor in the real game, I'm going to stay out of civil wars just to avoid the logistical headaches and cognitive dissonance.

I'll recruit troops for Phillip, however the sheer amount of men required means that recruiment will take place in two or three settlements. I also don't know where he'll be going, so I can't guarantee, even OOC, that they'll all reach him by the end of next turn.

Think of it as a semi-panicked call for troops.

I'm glad the test game is serving it's purpose.

Unfortunately, all this added stuff means I won't be able to get to the save until Tuesday in the morning, EST.

[TinCow]

Under the circumstances, I think we can assume that TLG will rule in favor of the King and move on from there. No need to delay this any further. It's just a test after all.

OK, if troop assembly is problematic, remember that you can also use mercs to bulk him up. With the huge casualties in the battle, there should be a lot more income next turn due to reduced upkeep.

[The Lemongate]

Under the circumstances, I think we can assume that TLG will rule in favor of the King and move on from there. No need to delay this any further. It's just a test after all.

I do.

And ouch...

uh

[Privateerkev]

maybe the 3rd time is a charm...

Ignoramus! Please clear your PM inbox!

[Privateerkev]

I saw this in the King's post in the SOT and it made me think of a general question.

1148 Notes: However the Civil War situation plays out the King will end this turn with no units in his Royal Army, and I believe under the rules the Chancellor must train or hire on new units to recreate that Royal army.

Now, I understand OK is going to refill the King's army and this post is not referring to that.

This question is for the "real" game. If someone gives away part or all of their army, does the Chancellor have to refill it?

Under the rules now, someone with a legal army, can give units to another legal army, and then the original person can demand more units. If the 2nd army is "locked" there doesn't seem to be anything the Chancellor can do about it.

Is this kind of unit hording something we want to allow? I ask because it seems like the Chancellor has no choice except to recruit nothing at all across the whole faction. He'd only be able to hire mercs for people. Otherwise he'd be forced to fill the armies of hoarders. If those who owned legal armies worked together, they could make it where all but one of them has a legal full-stack army without the Chancellor's consent.

I guess another option would be for the Chancellor or his ally to declare war on the hoarders because then he doesn't have to keep refilling their armies.

[Privateerkev]

Sorry for the triple post but Ig logged off without clearing his PM box so I'm going to put my PM for him in here.

The following spoiler is for Ignoramus and OverKnight. Not for anyone else. But, everyone else can rest assured that it is nothing particularly juicy or exciting.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hi Ig,

We're still in the 1150 turn and I have a question. Would you consider dropping Richart's ballista? We could use it for other things.

But you have your army "locked" in the SOT so we need your permission. You'd have to either "unlock" your army in the SOT or just give a specific order to OverKnight saying he can take the ballista out of your army when he makes your move for you.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Kevin

This PM is CC'd to OverKnight to keep him in the loop.

[TinCow]

This question is for the "real" game. If someone gives away part or all of their army, does the Chancellor have to refill it?

Under the rules now, someone with a legal army, can give units to another legal army, and then the original person can demand more units. If the 2nd army is "locked" there doesn't seem to be anything the Chancellor can do about it.

Is this kind of unit hording something we want to allow? I ask because it seems like the Chancellor has no choice except to recruit nothing at all across the whole faction. He'd only be able to hire mercs for people. Otherwise he'd be forced to fill the armies of hoarders. If those who owned legal armies worked together, they could make it where all but one of them has a legal full-stack army without the Chancellor's consent.

I guess another option would be for the Chancellor or his ally to declare war on the hoarders because then he doesn't have to keep refilling their armies.

I thought about this recently, actually. You can guess what conclusion I arrived at by the fact that I sent an IC PM to Ramses urging just such a thing to boost the Anjou armies. There are a couple issues with this, but they all seem to resolve themselves nicely IC.

First, there's the fact that it's a way for neutral noblemen to provide active military aid to one side in a Civil War. That's a loophole around the rule that doesn't require topping up of armies involved in a Civil War. However, it resolves itself nicely. The situation by its nature requires that a nobleman strip his own army down to the bare minimum. That makes him very vulnerable to attack. So, the neutral nobleman can continue to do this forced resupply, but he has to leave himself with almost no defenses on a regular basis in order to accomplish it. This would allow him to be easily squashed if someone declared war against him. A nice balance, I think.

Second, this poses some problems outside a Civil War as well, since it would be a method by which any owner of a Private/Royal Army could force the bulking up of any city or fort garrison of their choice. Just dump your own men into the city/fort of your favorite vassal and then get the mandatory resupply. Too much of this would risk draining the treasury dry with upkeep. That in itself seems like an interesting IC situation to me. Too many armies and not enough florins to go around. A negotiated settlement between multiple noblemen for disbanding could result, or perhaps a major offensive against the AI to use the men that are otherwise going to waste. Another option would of course be Civil War to get rid of the most egregious army hoarders. In all cases, it seems like something that would be more fun to deal with IC instead of OOC.

So, all in all I'm inclined to let the 'loophole' stand simply because it creates interesting IC situations which would probably bring more to the game than they would take away.

[TinCow]

I would like to hear some general discussion about how the game seems to be working at the moment. Many of us haven't had much to do, but there have been several people involved in downloading, making moves, and uploading nearly every turn. I'm curious to hear whether the game seems to work relatively efficiently, whether it is too complex, and whether there are any changes that should be made to improve the actual handling of the movements and/or saves. I am also curious about the general perceptions of the Civil War mechanics. Is it working well? Too hard? Too confusing? Is the AI Battle option nice and efficient or simply annoyingly unpredictable? All comments are welcome.

For OK in particular, how are you finding the burden of being Chancellor? Is it easy to understand what you need to do and locate the information you need, or is the added level of freedom for the other players making your job too hard? Are the permanent influence bonuses for the Chancellor enough 'compensation'? Is this a job people are actually going to want?

[Privateerkev]

I'm curious to hear whether the game seems to work relatively efficiently, whether it is too complex, and whether there are any changes that should be made to improve the actual handling of the movements and/or saves.

I think it is going along as smoothly as it can. Having people dl/ul the saves has not been a problem. Though I still predict there will be "traffic jams" in the real game when we have 20+ people rushing for the save in a 24 hour period.

There seems to be a small learning curve as people learn what they can and can not do with the save, as well as what they need to put in the SOT in order to make sure their wishes are implemented. But that should shake itself out after we have played for a little while. Maybe a short "how to play" guide will be in order for new players to learn what to post in the SOT and what they can do with the save.

Hopefully the real game will have longer turns than 24 hours. While I understand it is to help us get through the test game quickly, I find it hurts my chances at coordinating with the other players. Guillemot basically has to be a "General" and just give orders because I don't have time to ask a question via PM, get a response, send another PM with ideas, get another response, then tell the Chancellor what we want. With only 24 hours, and players spanning the globe, I only have time to send one PM telling them what I want and then I hope the Chancellor will implement what I want if the other players do not submit on time. While this has been working somewhat effeciently, it is muting any possibility at real RP'ing and story writing.

I am also curious about the general perceptions of the Civil War mechanics. Is it working well? Too hard? Too confusing? Is the AI Battle option nice and efficient or simply annoyingly unpredictable?

I've already laid out my biggest concern. And that is the ability for players to react to other players within a turn. I prefer a "we-go" system like we had for KotR. Where everyone submits orders to another party and that person implements them at once. The new rule Ramses and TC hammered out to allow other people the option of moving their allies will help but I still prefer "we-go". The problem with "we-go" however is that it will probably put a burden on one person which is something we've really wanted to get away from.

I find the AI battle option to be both quick and fair. I like the big PvP battles but they are too time consuming to do often. The AI battle allows us to have civil wars be a viable option without fearing that it will bog the game down to a crawl. While the AI is incompetent, it is incompetent to both sides equally. It is the great equalizer. The only catch is that when you plan for battles, you have to think about how the AI will implement the battle, not what you would do in the battle.

[OverKnight]

The burden of being Chancellor has increased somewhat, but not too much compared to Matthias's two terms. I remember the heady days of Otto's Chancellorship when I could basically do anything I wanted and send people wherever I wanted.

The major difference is I have to pay a lot more attention to various orders, queues and PMs. The job has become more clerical and less strategic, players have a lot more say in the direction of the game and I have to make sure it ends up in game play. Trying to forge a strategic concensus out of this might be difficult, like herding cats.

Considering I'm excaberating a civil war and possibly regicide by proxy without getting my own hands dirty, the job does have its advantages. Though it would be interesting to see if I could fight off an impeachment, as Louis is violating acceptable Chancellor behavior for some people and an Emergency Session would be one of the few ways, at the moment, to rein him in.

[TinCow]

Hopefully the real game will have longer turns than 24 hours. While I understand it is to help us get through the test game quickly, I find it hurts my chances at coordinating with the other players. Guillemot basically has to be a "General" and just give orders because I don't have time to ask a question via PM, get a response, send another PM with ideas, get another response, then tell the Chancellor what we want. With only 24 hours, and players spanning the globe, I only have time to send one PM telling them what I want and then I hope the Chancellor will implement what I want if the other players do not submit on time. While this has been working somewhat effeciently, it is muting any possibility at real RP'ing and story writing.

My perception was that most Chancellors would grant periods longer than 24 hours to make their moves. I would expect 48, or even 72, hours to become the norm eventually, but I didn't want to legislate it. The 24 hours is meant to be the 'minimum' to ensure that the Chancellor does not go below that level. I do actively encourage extensions on a regular basis, though. I would expect the first Chancellorship or two to go relatively fast, and probably not need extensions. However, after that each Chancellor could simply say that all turns will be XX hours long, and that will be that. If we mandate 48 hours, then we have to sit around twiddling our thumbs if we finish early. Better to mandate less time, and encourage time extensions as normal operating procedure.

[Privateerkev]

I have rules question.

Does the Chancellor have to respect the SOT when he finds replacements for an army?

Here is the Chancellor report:

King Phillip's attack by proxy on Gascony has cost him his entire army. Alone in hostile territory, he hired a unit of Frankish Knights, the only mercenaries available in the area. The King has called on on Rheims (spear militia), Metz (armored spearmen and two sergeant spearmen) and Staufen (Feudal Knights and two peasant crossbowmen) to refill his ranks. This, plus another missile regiment recruited later, will serve as his new army. The question is if he can gather these men in time.

Now Rheims is fine because Gibson never posted a SOT. (hmm... remind me to ask OK to disband Rheims's militia... hehehehehehe)

But Staufen is the King's and he posted: "No units to be removed or disbanded."

And Metz is Poitevin's and he posted: "no units may be removed or disbanded."

Now if these two sent PM's saying units could leave, then my apologies. I'm just trying to get a grasp of the rules.

Here is something I just thought of. If the Chancellor wanted to refill the King's army quickly, he could have just sent units from his own army over to the King. They're pretty close to each other. I forget offhand what the Prince has but I'm sure it would go a long way towards fulfilling the requirements for a Royal Army. Then the obligation would be met, the Chancellor could recruit himself shiny new things, and we can get on with the business of killing each other.

[TinCow]

Yes, the Chancellor does have to obey the SOT. The restrictions on Staufen can definitely be ignored because the units are being supplied from the King's property directly to his own Royal Army. While perhaps technically illegal, it's within the spirit of the King's orders. Metz is definitely illegal, though and it's good of you to point it out. This situation is a bit awkward and it's worth some discussion to figure out what to do about it.

First, we could leave the rules as they are. That makes the mandated resupply of depleted Private/Royal Armies something of a pain. It would require IC dealmaking and negotiating. Usually that is a good thing, but since this is something the Chancellor has to do, it could be more annoying that it's worth.

Second, we could legislate an exception to the rules for the purposes of resupplying depleted Private/Royal Armies. This would be relatively easy and would go something like the following:

4.3 – Army Replenishment: If a Private or Royal Army falls below the minimum strength level, all military recruitment must be allocated to restoring the Army to minimum strength before money can be spent on other recruitment, unless the owner agrees otherwise. In the event of a conflict, a Royal Army takes priority over a Private Army. Units recruited for the purposes of restoring Private and Royal Armies to minimum strength may not have their movement restricted by the owners of the settlements in which they are recruited. This rule does not apply to armies involved in a Civil War.

(Addition is italicized)

This rule alteration may be the best way to go, as the Chancellor's life may otherwise become a huge pain in the butt.

[OverKnight]

You're forgetting that you took all my infantry PK.

I did the best I could recruiting units that Ramses could access in a reasonable time frame. Considering the Angevins are his allies, I see no problem. I've got a clear duty under 4.3, one that I think trumps local control of a garrison. Notice I'm recruitng troops specifically for the King, I'm not moving existing troops from the garrison.

If I don't get PMs forbidding me to move those troops out of the settlements by the respective owners, they'll go to Phillip.

[Privateerkev]

You're forgetting that you took all my infantry PK.

Yeah, and I still say they are the only reason Guillemot is alive right now. :D

I did the best I could recruiting units that Ramses could access in a reasonable time frame. Considering the Angevins are his allies, I see no problem. I've got a clear duty under 4.3, one that I think trumps local control of a garrison. Notice I'm recruitng troops specifically for the King, I'm not moving existing troops from the garrison.

If I don't get PMs forbidding me to move those troops out of the settlements by the respective owners, they'll go to Phillip.

But, I'm not sure you can "ignore" a rule. TC said something about rules being binding on the Chancellor. If TLG says no one can leave Metz, then no one can leave Metz. Period.

<-- smiley to add levity to a post that could be taken far too seriously.

[TinCow]

And that's why I think this rule change would be good, even though it removes an area of IC negotiation. The rules ARE binding on the Chancellor, but this one would not only create annoying negotiations on a regular basis, but it would also cause problems for the owners of Private/Royal Armies which would reduce their power somewhat. I think PA/RA need to remain 'big' rank bonuses, and thus we need to do what we can to preseve them. In this case, it looks like we need to allow newly recruited units to ignore local orders so long as those units are only being created to boost a PA/RA to minimum strength levels. Everything above minimum should require the usual negotiation or recruitment from a pre-authorized location, but that minimum level should be given priority over everything else IMO.

[Privateerkev]

And that's why I think this rule change would be good, even though it removes an area of IC negotiation. The rules ARE binding on the Chancellor, but this one would not only create annoying negotiations on a regular basis, but it would also cause problems for the owners of Private/Royal Armies which would reduce their power somewhat. I think PA/RA need to remain 'big' rank bonuses, and thus we need to do what we can to preseve them. In this case, it looks like we need to allow newly recruited units to ignore local orders so long as those units are only being created to boost a PA/RA to minimum strength levels. Everything above minimum should require the usual negotiation or recruitment from a pre-authorized location, but that minimum level should be given priority over everything else IMO.

But how does that work in a civil war? Doers that mean the Prince can recruite men for the King from Toulouse (Guillemot's castle) and Guillemot can't do anything about it? Since it could conceivably decide whether Guillemot lives or dies in a future battle, I'd be pretty pissed IC if that happened.

(OOC I'd be fine because its a rule. IC I'd be rightously pissed though. )

[OverKnight]

The King only gets one top-off and then, because he is in a Civil War officially after that, I don't have to reinforce him if I don't want to.

[Privateerkev]

The King only gets one top-off and then, because he is in a Civil War officially after that, I don't have to reinforce him if I don't want to.

Yeah, and thats one of the reasons I declared war. He was able to do one "lend-lease" act and that is it.

In hind-sight, I should have just declared war on him in turn 1. But I was afraid I'd lose people in my chain and that neutrals would jump in on the King's side.

[TinCow]

But how does that work in a civil war? Doers that mean the Prince can recruite men for the King from Toulouse (Guillemot's castle) and Guillemot can't do anything about it? Since it could conceivably decide whether Guillemot lives or dies in a future battle, I'd be pretty pissed IC if that happened.

(OOC I'd be fine because its a rule. IC I'd be rightously pissed though. )

OK is right. It doesn't apply to a Civil War. Technically, the unit would have been recruited while Guillemot and Phillip were still neutral with each other. The current situation is only occurring because of the timing of the Declaration and the previous 'donation.' It's not really a question of recruiting units in your settlement for a hostile army, it's recruiting units in your settlement for a neutral army that you declared war on shortly afterwards.

Even then, it required a 'rules dispute' ruling which didn't go your way because of IC politics. If Gascony had held the highest rank outside FL, you could have ruled that Phillip shouldn't get his reinforcements in this specific and bizarre situation.

[_Tristan_]

I've already laid out my biggest concern. And that is the ability for players to react to other players within a turn. I prefer a "we-go" system like we had for KotR. Where everyone submits orders to another party and that person implements them at once. The new rule Ramses and TC hammered out to allow other people the option of moving their allies will help but I still prefer "we-go". The problem with "we-go" however is that it will probably put a burden on one person which is something we've really wanted to get away from.

I completely agree with this... Some "blind" system would be better and would prevent doing thing IC based on OOC knowledge... Though I agree it will put a large burden on someone...

EDIT : I do not like the first come- first served idea where whoever grabs the save either first or last can gain some kind of unfair advantage... I agree that we want to encourage as much participation from the players (or that is the reasoning behind the process, as I understood it...) but I find it detrimental to players who are active in the thread but cannot access the save as often as some others... And I say this knowing that in KoTR I was one of the first to be able to grab the save due to the time differences, hence my foray into France...

I find the AI battle option to be both quick and fair. I like the big PvP battles but they are too time consuming to do often. The AI battle allows us to have civil wars be a viable option without fearing that it will bog the game down to a crawl. While the AI is incompetent, it is incompetent to both sides equally. It is the great equalizer. The only catch is that when you plan for battles, you have to think about how the AI will implement the battle, not what you would do in the battle.

I would disagree and not only because I was on the losing side of the last PvP. The problem is I don't know what would be the best solution to replace those AI battles.

The main problem I see is that those AI PvP battles do not allow to make use of some strategically important situations such as that bridge battle where the encirclement we made should have divided Guillemot's forces (or not... but then he would have had to suffer a charge in the back of his line) with a different result from what happened the way TC set up the battle.

I think the AI battles are fine as it is a test game but I can assure you I would be rather angry had this happened in the real game... All that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong for our side (no cavalry charge, constant routing...)

I have not given long thought to this but wouldn't it be possible to set up two PvAI battles (one for each side) and decide a victory and losses from some kind of average method or depending on who scored the most decisive victory... There would be no loss of time as both players could play their own battles and reveal their results simultaneously.

[Privateerkev]

OK is right. It doesn't apply to a Civil War. Technically, the unit would have been recruited while Guillemot and Phillip were still neutral with each other. The current situation is only occurring because of the timing of the Declaration and the previous 'donation.' It's not really a question of recruiting units in your settlement for a hostile army, it's recruiting units in your settlement for a neutral army that you declared war on shortly afterwards.

Even then, it required a 'rules dispute' ruling which didn't go your way because of IC politics. If Gascony had held the highest rank outside FL, you could have ruled that Phillip shouldn't get his reinforcements in this specific and bizarre situation.

Ah, ok that makes more sense. OOC, I didn't really care which way it went but IC it just seemed strange to me to have a possible situation where Guillemot's castle is used to recruit men that would probably be used to kill Guillemot. I simply saw a "dis-connect" IC where it just didn't make sense.

[TinCow]

I have not given long thought to this but wouldn't it be possible to set up two PvAI battles (one for each side) and decide a victory and losses from some kind of average method or depending on who scored the most decisive victory... There would be no loss of time as both players could play their own battles and reveal their results simultaneously.

That was one of my original options, actually. I called it the Custom Battle option and the text read:

Custom Battles will involve both players fighting a custom battle against the AI and submitting their results. econ21, or anyone he chooses, will create the custom battle and determine any extra rules involved in it.

However, in initial discussions with various people it was brought up that a few people who are very good at this game could wipe the floor with the rest of us with this method. I recall FactionHeir being the prime example, with people thinking he could probably declare war on everyone and win with just a single unit of cavalry. Leaving it up to individual skill in playing TW games is somewhat questionable when we're supposed to be roleplaying other people, not our uber-elite gamer selves.

For the record, though, I am very much open to other ideas for resolving PvP battles. I spent a long time looking for other methods, including browser based games and PnP systems. I couldn't find anything that fit well, though. If anyone knows of a system that might work, I'm eager to hear about it.

[_Tristan_]

Still I would prefer to have my @$$ kicked by FH (even if not directly) rather than some dumb AI fighting the fight of a lifetime (as might have been the case with the Poitevin-Chanteur vs Guillemot battle) for me...

EDIT : And I think it would give some incentive IC to recruit some players into your feudal chain if only for their TW battle skills...

[TinCow]

Well, I don't see the harm in it as long as everyone involved in the battle agrees to it. We could simply add Custom Battles back in as an additional option on top of what we already have. We could then make Multiplayer, Custom Battles, and AI Battles require only the consent of the people involved, and restrict the 'vote' to the Tabletop and Abbreviated Tabletop, both of which require more time.

[Ramses II CP]

So, regarding the do not remove or etc. rules, isn't it actually in the King's interest to refuse to let the Chancellor hedge the rules? If the King says no units can be removed from Staufen, then no units can, and the Chancellor needs to recruit units for the King from somewhere else. That way when/if I get to Staufen I'll have all those units coming in to join the ones already present.

Quite honestly I'm not sure how the reinforcement rule is going to work out given the other rules in place about recruitment. Mercenaries will work to some extent, but I have a feeling everyone who is actually in the game is going to set their settlement to do not remove/do not disband, so we'll be down to recruiting only at the settlements of people who aren't really playing.

On the AI battles, I do think they're fair, but they're also ugly and incomprehensible. How do you write a story about what we saw in the replay without assuming the gross incompetence of all three commanders? It also troubles me that in these pivotal battles there won't be any modeling of the traits of the characters. That also seemed to be the case for the battle of Trent, but I took that as more a matter of simplification given that there were so many avatars involved.

I think we've gotten a bit trapped by the rules at the moment. The Chancellor has to recruit units for the King, but the way things look he's mostly forced to recruit units that will almost certainly be siezed by others before they can reach the King.

[Privateerkev]

So, regarding the do not remove or etc. rules, isn't it actually in the King's interest to refuse to let the Chancellor hedge the rules? If the King says no units can be removed from Staufen, then no units can, and the Chancellor needs to recruit units for the King from somewhere else. That way when/if I get to Staufen I'll have all those units coming in to join the ones already present.

Yes, if you refuse to let the Chancellor take men from Staufen, he's forced to get them from somewhere else. So this way you get the new men from somewhere else as well as the ones that were already from Staufen.

Unless were saying that reinforcements have to all be recruited fresh. Then it doesn't matter where they come from.

But if current units can count towards the total, then it is in the King's interest to make sure his current units are not used to fill his army. That way, he gets more units.

[TinCow]

Quite honestly I'm not sure how the reinforcement rule is going to work out given the other rules in place about recruitment. Mercenaries will work to some extent, but I have a feeling everyone who is actually in the game is going to set their settlement to do not remove/do not disband, so we'll be down to recruiting only at the settlements of people who aren't really playing.

In the beginning, probably so. However, after a while we're going to go bankrupt with upkeep due to this system, so it'll get worked out IC. People could agree to set caps on their garrisons. Those that violate this policy would face the wrath of the rest. We could try to legislate it, but I think that would be far more messy than doing it IC.

On the AI battles, I do think they're fair, but they're also ugly and incomprehensible. How do you write a story about what we saw in the replay without assuming the gross incompetence of all three commanders? It also troubles me that in these pivotal battles there won't be any modeling of the traits of the characters. That also seemed to be the case for the battle of Trent, but I took that as more a matter of simplification given that there were so many avatars involved.

I see AI Battles are our equivalent of an autoresolve in the Hotseat games. I'm only providing a descriptive commentary as an explanation. If people want to make up some other explanation for what happened, that's fine with me. It's far from ideal, but it's the fastest and easiest system I can think of. I still hold out hope that we'll find a perfect solution to the PvP battles.

[Zim]

I like the idea of online MP, Custom, and AI Battles being up to the players fighting and a vote required for tabletop battles.

I personally don't see much advantage to PvAI battles. I'm not in the top tier of players here, but I can easily defeat a AI army roughly equal to my own with almost no casualties. I could very easily see a situation where one person wins because in his battle he had 15 casualties, to the other person's 10. Players still have little incentive to play traits, since they need to score as big of a victory as possible to win.

I suppose in the above example the majority of both armies would be disbanded, which is another issue. Most of us are pretty good players, and PvAI battle results can be expected to be fairly close for most battles, unless one side has a huge advantage. While near mutual destruction with one side winning slightly might be fair, it doesn't make for decisive battles (it also means having to be extremely inventive to make up a story fitting the results, considering neither player's battle would have turned out anything like the official results). AI battles are both quick and add an element of chance, where one side might score a major upset (as actually happened in the test game battle).

I guess I'm just saying the AI battles have their advantages as well.