OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[Privateerkev]

I'm not very happy. When I loaded the save, fog of was off. Obviously Warmaster Horus had been looking at the save without the fog on. This is completely against the spirit of the game and gives unfair advantages to those who do it.

What is the fun in playing the game with the fog off?

[Rowan]

The first draft of the Megas Guide is now complete. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Please point out anything I missed or anything that should be improved/added.

Wow. When I suggested the idea I was prepared to write the guide if it was deemed necessary but I never could have done anything near as good as that.

Someone with Megas experience can comment on the substance but I think that guide really lowers the bar to get new people to try their hand at being Chancellor/Megas.

[Ituralde]

Great guide TinCow! This should make being Megas a lot easier for all involved!

Of course a question has come up though concerning the replenishing of RAs/PAs.
Imagine a scenario where the Private Army of House Awesome is standing around in the domain of House Awesome which consists of three provinces. Now each of those provinces has it listed in the SOT that no garrison units may be removed from those cities.

Now the logical thing to do as Megas to replenish the PA of House Awesome would be to recruit the necessary units in the three provinces nearby, but once recruited the Megas could not use them to replenish the PA. My question now is, is the Megas then required by the rules to recruit those units either a) somewhere else in the Empire or b) hire Mercenaries?

Or could he say that he recruited the necessary troops to replenish the PA and force the involved House Awesome to use the newly recruited garrison troops? Or are SOT restrictions on garrison units void if those units were specifically recruited to replenish a RA/PA?


I remember that we had this discussion before but I don't remember the outcome anymore and couldn't find anything in the rules.

[AussieGiant]

Hi Ituralde,

Interesting twist there.

TC even mentions it in the guide under Point 3, section 1, Military Units.

Honestly, if the Megas is replenishing that particular Private army then the fact that they get instantaneously "caught" in a settlement as a "garrison" troops is not valid in my view. This seems a little nutty.

[OverKnight]

Perhaps there should be a cap on how many units can be retained in a city or castle for garrison purposes. Any troops recruited once the cap had been hit would be available for the Megas to use to reinforce armies if he saw fit.

In cases of civil war this would only apply if recruitment was being used to replenish friendly forces.

[Ituralde]

I would like to have it in a way, where you can just recruit those troops and mark them as part of the RA/PA and that makes them exempt from any SOT rules. But in practice this might turn out to be really complicated to keep track of which units are intended for RAs/PAs once we get more of them.

And I don't even want to think about codifying the above in a manner that doesn't result in huge loopholes that completely defeat the whole thing.



The other way of course would be to negotiate with House Awesome and get them to change their SOTs but to me that seems a very time-consuming process and I don't want to interchange PMs for a day or a half before I can advance the turn...

[Rowan]

Well, there's always the I-can-replenish-your-army-with-local-troops-you-will-release-or-with-peasants-from-halfway-around-the-world argument Megas can use in those situations.

[Andres]

Perhaps there should be a cap on how many units can be retained in a city or castle for garrison purposes. Any troops recruited once the cap had been hit would be available for the Megas to use to reinforce armies if he saw fit.

In cases of civil war this would only apply if recruitment was being used to replenish friendly forces.

I think that's a good solution.

Something along the lines of : "Garrisons consist of a max of X units (of low quality infantry). If there are more than X units in a settlement, then Y units can be used freely by the Megas, with Y being the number of units in the settlement minus X. Bodyguard units do not count as units in the sense of this article."

[TinCow]

Of course a question has come up though concerning the replenishing of RAs/PAs.
Imagine a scenario where the Private Army of House Awesome is standing around in the domain of House Awesome which consists of three provinces. Now each of those provinces has it listed in the SOT that no garrison units may be removed from those cities.

IMO, this is an IC political issue. The Megas should negotiate with the owners of the settlements to let them release the units. If they don't, he's screwed up in his recruiting and will have to spend another turn trying to get the RA/PAs up to the proper level. I like IC negotiations, and this seems like an area that has so far not been explored much due to the general level of cooperation across the Empire.

The idea of a cap on garrison units would work, but I think simple IC politicking would as well.

[AussieGiant]

Good call TC

You know what I would do IC...I'd simply publish the recruiting queue's and for which armies they are designated for. Then ask if anyone has some issues with the allocation next turn.

If anyone wants to be a pain in the ass, then it wold be right out in the open for all to see.

Nothing like total transparency to get the juices flowing.

[Ituralde]

IMO, this is an IC political issue. The Megas should negotiate with the owners of the settlements to let them release the units. If they don't, he's screwed up in his recruiting and will have to spend another turn trying to get the RA/PAs up to the proper level. I like IC negotiations, and this seems like an area that has so far not been explored much due to the general level of cooperation across the Empire.

The idea of a cap on garrison units would work, but I think simple IC politicking would as well.

The highlight is mine and that's the point that worries me. I am also much in favour of IC politicking, but wouldn't that mean that I'd be breaking the rule for this turn, which is prohibited? And shouldn't that be avoided by the alternatives a) and b) mentioned above.

I'd be very much in favour of just telling House Awesome that I can't replenish their army and it's their fault and they have to fix it, but I can't because I am forced to recruit something for them somewhere.

I see your ruling and think it's good, but it also contradicts things you mentioned earlier and might therefore be hard to understand for everyone.

[TinCow]

The highlight is mine and that's the point that worries me. I am also much in favour of IC politicking, but wouldn't that mean that I'd be breaking the rule for this turn, which is prohibited? And shouldn't that be avoided by the alternatives a) and b) mentioned above.

I'd be very much in favour of just telling House Awesome that I can't replenish their army and it's their fault and they have to fix it, but I can't because I am forced to recruit something for them somewhere.

I see your ruling and think it's good, but it also contradicts things you mentioned earlier and might therefore be hard to understand for everyone.

Well, I wouldn't consider it a rule violation, because in this situation the Megas actually did properly do recruitment for the RA/PA. It just so happened that the person who owned the settlement in which the recruiting occurred then seized those units before they could be removed. That's no different than any current recruitment any of our Megas' have done, except that they all seem to have had cooperation by the Senators who owned the settlements in which they were recruiting. If one of those people suddenly turned and changed their SOT to prevent the removal of those troops after they had been recruited for a RA/PA, there's no real way to blame that on the Megas unless there was some kind of evidence that it was an intentional scheme between the two people in the first place. Even if the Megas' RA/PA recruitment is blocked in this way and someone does complain about it, the Megas would be given time to rectify the situation. He controls the pace at which the game advances, so he could spend as much time as he wanted negotiating with the uncooperative Sentator. He could also just shift future recruiting to a different city which he knows won't cause this kind of problem. Both of these actions would certainly qualify as trying to rectify the situation.

In general, I want to encourage people to use politics and negotiations to solve their problems, not rules. Rules can help simplify a situation, but complexity and uncertainty sometimes adds flavor to the game. It's possible that these situations could cause enough problems to warrant a rule change, but it's also possible that they can be dealt with IC without any new rules. When it comes down to it, the barometer of whether a rule change is necessary is you guys. A rule change can only pass if 2/3 agree with it, and if 2/3 agree with it then it's probably a good thing. I therefore think the proper thing to do in this situation is just to propose a CA (assuming you want a new rule) and take the debate to the Magnaura.

[TinCow]

FYI, I am not opening the new Senate Session until the 1125 AD save has been posted. Ignoramus appears to have finished his term, but somehow forgot to post the newest save. When he does, I will open the next Senate Session.

I will begin working on the Library update this evening.

[_Tristan_]

Just a question :

I've noticed that almost all crusaders have troops despondent, undisciplined or mutinous.

I understand this is due to the SS system but shouldn't our "crusaders" be a bit more fanatical ?

[TinCow]

Possibly, but most of you have also had ridiculously hard voyages. The only one who had it easy then got himself and his entire army slaughtered to the last man. Sounds like a reason to be depressed to me.

[_Tristan_]

OK...

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Possibly, but most of you have also had ridiculously hard voyages. The only one who had it easy then got himself and his entire army slaughtered to the last man. Sounds like a reason to be depressed to me.

Just a thought.. Did you change the army supplies trait before the crusade? If not then it's not quite fair because most of the generals already had traits that said 'Army supplies 75 percent' or something like that. So they all should have had a fresh start.

[AussieGiant]

I think the supply system is absolutely perfect for what has been attempted on the Crusade.

Spend years on cramped boats, storms, sabotage, and then land in hostile territory that by the way is predominately desert...seems mild to me.

[TinCow]

I have never touched the supply trait system and I dont see why I should start now. You all knew the risks of the Crusade before you joined, including that you would end up stranded in a far away land that was not Orthodox. That said, I highly doubt whether anyone else will die on the Crusade. The way it is shaping up now, both Alexandria and Cairo will be assaulted by large armies. Even with a hit to your morale from the supply system, I suspect that good generalship can win the assaults without too many difficulties.

If you are all so very afraid of losing, all 6 of you could join forces together and take Alexandria first. Such a huge army would have no chance of being defeated. You could then simply wait in Alexandria until it reached 50% Orthodox and your supplies recovered, and you could then move on Cairo. This would take a long time, but it would work. If you don't want to take a long time, then you are taking a greater risk for a greater reward. The choice is yours to make.

If you really don't like any of these options, I noticed that Igno had moved a large fleet nearby in the 1124 save. If you can get the next Megas to agree to send it to the Egyptian coast, I would consider letting people abandon the Crusade (their army will disband) and sail to wherever the Megas decides to take them.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I knew the risks and there is nothing to change here anymore.. I'm fine with the current situation.
It's just that Vissarionas was 'Out of supplies' and had 'Desperate Troops' at the beginning of the Crusade..
Kind of weird if they were just joining the Crusade and took a lot of supplies with them..
Anyway.. it's all in the past now and we can't change that..
Perhaps when we have our second Crusade or something then all people could get a fresh start..

[Ramses II CP]

Can I throw in a quick eyeroll about the supply system? Supposedly Vissa was in Cairo for years during which his 'army,' presumably living in comfort somewhere in garrison, earned many of those morale lowering effects that have evidently gotten worse. Somehow he's carried those to a completely new and fanatical group of men from the very start. I'm not asking that they be changed because I think they're irrelevant to any battles we may fight.

IMHO the supply system harasses the player with unecessary tedium and absurd resolutions, which is why I voted against it. For IC purposes I am ignoring the traits it throws just as I would ignore 'fair fighter' or 'winning first' when they got improperly tossed in vanilla. As far as battles, there's a simple solution, just move the non-general troops out of the stack and use one group or the other as reinforcements. Or just win the battles with the jedi anyway, the rest of the troops are just fluff and it doesn't matter if they run away at the drop of a hat. I played around with SS4.1 battles a few weeks ago and let me tell you, two general's bodyguards can defeat any stack of regular enemy troops, and using just a bit of cleverness can eliminate enemy generals almost as easily.

[TinCow]

It's just that Vissarionas was 'Out of supplies' and had 'Desperate Troops' at the beginning of the Crusade.

I wish that had been mentioned to me at the time, as I never noticed it. It's impossible for me to change that retroactively and anything I did now would just butcher the game and probably be unfair to some other people. I will consider a 'supply system' reset if I do another Event like this in the future.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I wish I would have been smart enough to look into traits back then
But yeah.. there is nothing to be done here anymore and like Ramses said.. we can just use our jedi to win the battles

[ULC]

Such apathy in the Senate these days

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Such apathy in the Senate these days

Well.. ATPG's guy just died in there.. what did you expect from people who enjoyed that?

[ULC]

I dunno, someone to at least complain about the mess I was making, getting blood all over the place

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I think protoasecretes would say something but looks like his too old to notice things like that anymore

EDIT: Yeah! 600th post!

[Ramses II CP]

I wish that had been mentioned to me at the time, as I never noticed it. It's impossible for me to change that retroactively and anything I did now would just butcher the game and probably be unfair to some other people. I will consider a 'supply system' reset if I do another Event like this in the future.

I did, btw, mention this via pm about two turns before the crusade (Around when the Pagan Magician issue came up), while GH and I were working on Vissa's return story, and your reply was that you were not editing any supply system traits at that time. I didn't then and don't now think it will have any real effect on the battle, so I hope it's clear that I'm not complaining.

[Ituralde]

Well, I wouldn't consider it a rule violation, because in this situation the Megas actually did properly do recruitment for the RA/PA. It just so happened that the person who owned the settlement in which the recruiting occurred then seized those units before they could be removed. That's no different than any current recruitment any of our Megas' have done, except that they all seem to have had cooperation by the Senators who owned the settlements in which they were recruiting. If one of those people suddenly turned and changed their SOT to prevent the removal of those troops after they had been recruited for a RA/PA, there's no real way to blame that on the Megas unless there was some kind of evidence that it was an intentional scheme between the two people in the first place. Even if the Megas' RA/PA recruitment is blocked in this way and someone does complain about it, the Megas would be given time to rectify the situation. He controls the pace at which the game advances, so he could spend as much time as he wanted negotiating with the uncooperative Sentator. He could also just shift future recruiting to a different city which he knows won't cause this kind of problem. Both of these actions would certainly qualify as trying to rectify the situation.

In general, I want to encourage people to use politics and negotiations to solve their problems, not rules. Rules can help simplify a situation, but complexity and uncertainty sometimes adds flavor to the game. It's possible that these situations could cause enough problems to warrant a rule change, but it's also possible that they can be dealt with IC without any new rules. When it comes down to it, the barometer of whether a rule change is necessary is you guys. A rule change can only pass if 2/3 agree with it, and if 2/3 agree with it then it's probably a good thing. I therefore think the proper thing to do in this situation is just to propose a CA (assuming you want a new rule) and take the debate to the Magnaura.

That's totally fine with me, just wanted to make sure I am not breaking a rule by doing what you described.

Cheers!

Ituralde

[TinCow]

I did, btw, mention this via pm about two turns before the crusade (Around when the Pagan Magician issue came up), while GH and I were working on Vissa's return story, and your reply was that you were not editing any supply system traits at that time. I didn't then and don't now think it will have any real effect on the battle, so I hope it's clear that I'm not complaining.

I apologize for being forgetful, but at least I'm consistent. I've learned a lot about the trait system since the whole near-Civil War thing, so my understanding of the problems and benefits is improving. As I said, I will make sure to give some thought to the supply system when I am creating future events. If you guys want to get rid of it altogether, you can just pass a CA to do so. I'll figure out how to disable it if it passes.

This game is for all of you guys, not for me. I will bow to your will on issues like this, because you are the ones that it impacts, not me. I will, however, continue to try and create IC strife however I can.