OOC Thread and Chatroom 2

[AussieGiant]

I tend to agree, but I'm looking for changes that make the game simpler, not more complex. The changes I'm still rolling around in my head involve a significant reduction in rule text, not an increase in it. If a proposed change cannot be written in a manner that is significantly more concise than the current version, then it's too complex for us.

Crunching now TC.

I'll write soon.

[Motep]

You people write too much, and, once more, this thing will go unread. Anywho, I am racking up on the children

[GeneralHankerchief]

Just so this gets addressed now, the events that just took place in the Magnaura are entirely legal:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

TC,

I was kind of cryptic with you on asking for my previous clarification and you did deliver a satisfying response, but with the time fast approaching and considering the events of the OOC thread today, I thought I'd level with you:

The Basileus and I are going to bring down YLC's second Organization character, Symeon. We are going to do so by tricking him to make an appearance in the Magnaura. He has already agreed to do so, as evidenced by this exchange:

Symeon,

The time has come for me to make a personal appearance. I will be speaking in front of the Magnaura before the Basileus has time to deal with me; everyone will be distracted by the uproar over the Caesar. I would prefer it if I had your personal protection there. Enclosed is hooded Patriarchal Guard garb so that your identity is not questioned and your face goes unrecognized. You will, along with two of my real Guards, accompany me to the Magnaura.

Patriarch Nicholas III

You are delivered a letter quickly scrawled in Symeons handwriting.

Aleksander himself sits within the Magnaura...I am unsure of this, but I will not waver in my duty. I will be among your men, but all must be hooded, and you will not know which of them I am. I am sorry for taking this precaition, I know I am far more open with you, but...I cannot take a chance when we are so close to our goal.

Understandable.

We will be making a quick pit-stop first (OOC: check the Stories Thread in about an hour or so) and then head to the Magnaura.

Due to YLC's one cavaet, I forwarded the exchange to OK, IC, with the following addition:

Basileus,

We got him.

Have your guards simply surround all three of mine when the time comes. Numbers should prevail.

Patriarch Nicholas III

To which OK then responded:

Your Eminence,

I believe I will relish the oppurtunity to say, "Guards, seize them!" I will double the Guard, a precaution that will go along with our ruse, and take Aleksander into custody the same time as Symeon.

I will await your speech in the Magnaura before unleashing my men and our Edict.

Regards,

Basileus Aleksios

We set up a time (probably 5PM tomorrow ET) in which I would make the Patriarch's personal appearance, ending with Symeon. OK will then, immediately after, post the guards surrounding my three Patriarchal guards (since they're under his control). Preferably this will all take place within a minute so there will be no wriggle room for YLC to react/Symeon to escape.

Basically, I'm telling you this because I want your full understanding and approval. I believe that, the way this has been planned, this move will be perfectly legal. If you agree, I will also post this exchange in the OOC thread once the deed has been done to show that there will be no dispute.

GH

The Rules do not apply to IC storylines. Since you're not writing a story about Symeon, I can't see any way this could be wrong. This is just clever roleplaying, nothing more. You do not need to worry about the rules.

[AussieGiant]

ohhh.

[Cecil XIX]

Don't know how many of you browse the Empire forum (I know LOTR players tend to be more jaded when it comes to CA), but there's a couple of new articles posted that are very interesting.

http://www.gamersglobal.com/news/1208
http://www.totalvideogames.com/artic...r_QA_13681.htm

The first one is especially interesting, there they talk about how the Battle AI and Diplomacy are undergoing a massive refit.

Battle AI linked to Campaign AI: Kieran Bridgen told us that the withdrawing of the British Forces may be what the AI had planned from the beginning: The new strategic AI is linked to the battle AI, and it could be that the battle we've witnessed was not about holding the town (for the AI general), but about inflicting losses on our troops. Think about "losing a battle, but winning the war". If this really works out in the game, it might be the single most important improvement for all dedicated fans of the Total War series: How often have we given battle in a "bridge region", only to withdraw once the ammo of our ranged units was depleted? If the AI finally understands and uses such tactics, too, the overall gaming experience will profit.

Battle AI: The Battle AI will be improved in another way: So far, the Total War AI was "stage based": There were certain steps the AI general would follow, for example, to take a city: First stage, approach the gate and destroy it. Second stage, enter the town, and so on. If one of those stage goals was interrupted by the human player, the enemy AI would stall, which lead to heavy losses (e.g. in Medieval 2, when cavalry would remain in range of defenders' ranged weapons). Now, we learned, the AI will be goal oriented (for example: "inflict losses on the enemy", or "get into the city somehow"), which should make it act more flexibly.

Promises are cheap, of course, but if they're really taking the passive AI bug seriously we could be seeing a substantially improved product. That goes double if the Tactical AI can think strategically.

That's just the part most relevent to our purposes, there's a lot of good stuff in those articles and I'd advise everyone to take a look. Looks like we'll finally get something like a 'Get off my land!" feature, and the campaign map is pixel-based instead of tile-based. So instead of having to march into an army's tile in order to bring it to battle, each town, fort and army has a (presumably circular) ZoC.

When two zones meet, a battle occurs. This also help with hindering movement. Because you will be able to place forts anywhere you want, it should now be possible to actually have a "Limes" or a "Great Wall" along your border, with the enemy having to fight at least once in order to enter your country.

Don't know if 'meet' means when they overlap, or if when one army itself is inside an enemy ZoC, but either way it looks like it'll be easier to intercept armies. Good stuff.

[pevergreen]

Don't worry, I've been following ETW.

Yay bandwagon!

[ULC]

Aw c'mon GH, you didn't actually think I'd fall for the same blunder twice, did you? Credit me with some intelligence and cunning. The whole "I need your protection" thing was extremely fishy, but just saying no would have aroused suspicion, so I accepted, with the intent of Symeon being an observer to the Patriarch's loyalty, which you promptly betrayed. Try again folks .

[pevergreen]

Leave "justice" alone.

Thats the underlying message i got.

[GeneralHankerchief]

If we don't resolve this thing now, there's just going to be an eternal runaround (I think I mentioned to OK in a PM once about it being similar to two kids playing war with imaginary guns). Besides, I thought you said we had your permission to use the Organization however we wanted.

[ULC]

Sorry, wasn't clear on that I guess. I meant that you have permission to "blame it on the Organization". And it essentially resolved, since Symeon has no power at all anymore. I'm just leaving it open ended enough for a possible "return". Plus, Aleksander got to laugh at you all .

[AussieGiant]

Hmmm, YLC.

Didn't you tell me once who Symeon really was...

dunn dun dun...

and yes Cecil!! I am eagerly awaiting Empire: TW

I studied that period of history for years. I'm really looking forward to their take on the 18th Century.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Okey.. I can't take it anymore!!!!

Please.. PLEASE recruit me a new avatar!!!!

[AussieGiant]

Very nice story GH and OK.

That's great storytelling.

[Warmaster Horus]

Yup. Wish I could do that...

Anyhoo, Cecil, I'm watching ETW too. Not as closely as pever, but I'm watching it.

[TinCow]

Okey.. I can't take it anymore!!!!

Please.. PLEASE recruit me a new avatar!!!!

I'll get it done as soon as the game restarts (after the Emergency session). Where would you like to start?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I'll get it done as soon as the game restarts (after the Emergency session). Where would you like to start?

In Markianople.. former Caesarea

[Ignoramus]

My post in the Magnaura is how I feel OOC as well.

I am almost at the point of leaving this game completely.

[ULC]

Well, I would be sorry to see you to go Ignoramus. I know I almost left, but it was because of to much pressure IC, OOC, and RL (most especially) which made me consider withdrawal, but in all honesty I didn't want to leave. Thanks to the other supportive members in this game, I was able to work my way past all of that and I decided to keep playing because I found a new way to make it fun and enjoyable. So now I'll return the favor to you and ask that you stay, because as far as I can see, one player leaving diminishes the game more then the bickering about rules, IC or OOC. So I hope you stay Ignoramus! At least make sure the Caesar goes out in a blaze of glory!

[deguerra]

I think we need to keep OOC and IC seperate. I am sorry if my IC betrayal is causing you OOC grief, but that is the way I am playing my character. If there is anything I can do OOC to keep you in the game, let me know, because it wouldn't be the same without you.

[Ignoramus]

The biggest thing that annoys me is the repeated bringing up of the fact that I accidently broke the rules in the OOC Thread.

I accidently broke the rules as Megas, got reprimanded, and I apologised. But PK and Order members continue to bringing the matter up and use it to justify their questionable actions. What's in the past is in the past, and I am sick of being tarred with it OOC. IC is fine, but it's rather poor to continue to attack me OOC.

Secondly, I am frustrated by the way people are so democratic. We are talking about 12th century Europe, not 21st century Europe. While that's all IC and fine, it does detract when there is no fear of authority and everyone's essentially equal.

Third, it is a huge game killer that the Caesar gets continually mocked, ridiculed, and challenged, and the Basileos doesn't do anything about it, even though the Caesar is his son. While OK is free to roleplay Aleksios how he likes, Aleksios' actions seem to be managed like they dependent on public opinion polls.

Finally, I was a bit upset about the recent actions concerning the two Ioannes. But deguerra and I are sorting that out OOC.

[OverKnight]

It is unfortunate that you feel that Aleksios's behavior is an anachronism. It seems we have different styles of game play. However, I feel that I have presented, through various IC postings and PMs, that he has a nuanced approach towards Ioannis. He is not acting out of pique or spite, there are good reasons for what he does.

[Ignoramus]

I guess it's because I'm not as good as politics, and tend to have characters who wish to become absolute dictators and bash anyone who resists, while you're much more into becoming powerful through subtle politics.

[AussieGiant]

I guess it's because I'm not as good as politics, and tend to have characters who wish to become absolute dictators and bash anyone who resists, while you're much more into becoming powerful through subtle politics.

Come on Igno,

surely you can see that if this is your self professed style, "some" people are going to be a little defensive about it and do anything in their power to avoid being "dictated" and "bashed"?

You character is great. He's polarizing, inflammatory and slightly bonkers...you've just over played your hand a little too early.

If I had not seen this OOC admission that you feel the same way as you IC alias then I would have thought you were roleplaying like a champion.

-EDIT-

As for politics, then who cares...hire someone to do it for you!! You're the bloody Caesar for god sake, pick someone to be your liaison point and talk through that person as an advisor. If you're not good at something then you're in a ideal position to "find" people to do it for you. HINT HINT!!

[Ignoramus]

Come on Igno,

surely you can see that if this is your self professed style, "some" people are going to be a little defensive about it and do anything in their power to avoid being "dictated" and "bashed"?

You character is great. He's polarizing, inflammatory and slightly bonkers...you've just over played your hand a little too early.

If I had not seen this OOC admission that you feel the same way as you IC alias then I would have thought you were roleplaying like a champion.

-EDIT-

As for politics, then who cares...hire someone to do it for you!! You're the bloody Caesar for god sake, pick someone to be your liaison point and talk through that person as an advisor. If you're not good at something then you're in a ideal position to "find" people to do it for you. HINT HINT!!

True. But it would be fun to do the bashing.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't completely feel the same way IC all the time. At the start I decide how my character's going to go, and then get rather attached to it OOC. For instance, Sigismund wasn't bashing or dictating to anyone.

And I'll send you PM shortly.

[Warmaster Horus]

Hope you stay Ignoramus! LotR wouldn't be the same... Who could we all rant against?
Also, remember that once you become Basileus... You'll be way more powerful.

About House Korakas, the public decree is shutting it down, but the letter to Tagaris says he can be the leader if he wants to.

[Rowan]

The biggest thing that annoys me is the repeated bringing up of the fact that I accidently broke the rules in the OOC Thread.

I accidently broke the rules as Megas, got reprimanded, and I apologised. But PK and Order members continue to bringing the matter up and use it to justify their questionable actions. What's in the past is in the past, and I am sick of being tarred with it OOC. IC is fine, but it's rather poor to continue to attack me OOC.

The thing that bothered me most was that there were something like 3 accidents in a row and it was always the Order that was disadvantaged. And there were no in game consequences for you. I take your word that they were accidents, haven't took it up before and will not take it up anymore.

As far as I know PK/Mak has done everything he can to remain within the rules of the game while getting back at the Caesar in every way he can. TC originally intended finding loopholes to be a major factor in the game but it seems that just doesn't work.

Secondly, I am frustrated by the way people are so democratic. We are talking about 12th century Europe, not 21st century Europe. While that's all IC and fine, it does detract when there is no fear of authority and everyone's essentially equal.

Says the guy with Influence 5 avatar

And I think most of us are not role-playing the religious aspects of the era as much as we should. Personally, I'm just not comfortable doing it and so won't.

[Ignoramus]

Sorry guys for losing my cool. To be honest I thought that deguerra would accept my proposition, which was very naive of me, and so was rather shocked to find that he hadn't. I then unwisely posted before sorting things out.

I apologise if my hasty criticism hurt anyone. I really did take this issue too much to heart OOC, and should have realised that such things happen IC.

Deguerra and I are fine now OOC, and everything's resolve so I'll definitely be staying. I really do apologise for taking this issue way out of proportion. From now on, I'll try to fully separate OOC and IC issues. That way we can all enjoy the game.

To PK and the Order members, those rule violations were accidents, but they were more OOC rather than IC driven. Somehow, I took a disliking to the idea of an Orthodox Crusading Order, and so naturally Ioannis disliked them. It's worked out fine IC, but it's probably had unhelpful OOC results. So I hope I've learned from my mistakes, and will try and make the game fun for everyone.

And I will try to keep my PM box empty.

[Privateerkev]

Ig,

Everything going on with me is just IC. The OOC stuff needs to be moved past and I'll do the best I can with moving past it. It just got a little frustrating and alarming to be "loopholed" no less than 3 major times and then find out you also have a war being planned against you too.

So, try not to take the IC stuff too personally. OOC I love your "plan" in the letter. But it goes against everything I stand for IC so I decided to post it.

So, I'm glad your staying and I'm looking forward to seeing how all of this is going to pan out.

Feel free to PM me OOC anytime. I assure you my PM box is not full.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Question..

Can I vote even though I don't have an avatar? TC will recruit one for me after the Senate Session but can I vote in the current one?

[Ramses II CP]

I've been thinking about and refining my ideas on armies, and I think it's time to get them down on paper, so to speak. The essence is this:

1. More strict limitations on army size by rank. Almost all of the current proposals have people commanding whatever is literally available to them, which reduces the importance of the middle ranks. I'd propose that we put stronger caps on the size of army that lower ranks can use outside their own provinces (i.e. Other than for defense). For example, cap a Strator at 4 units, Comes at 6, etc. When two lower ranks combine their armies the cap is additive (Strator + Comes is 10 in this example). If we use very low numbers (Strator = 1, Comes = 2, S+C=3) we encourage more cooperation and we come closer to the Fuedal ideal, but that may be more restrictive on gameplay than is desirable even with the jedi guards.

2. Armies consist of any troops in the same stack as an avatar, and you keep track of them in your SoT. Within an owned province the owner may control any quantity of troops, but in order to leave his province that man must take with him only as many soldiers as he is authorized to have by his rank. Violations would be OOC rule breaks, not IC. If you come to control more soldiers than your cap allows by virtue of rank reduction, co-leader avatar deaths, or various other means you can choose which men comprise your army but you cannot under any circumstances move more men than you are allowed to command by your rank. Unaligned avatars have a higher cap to keep competition for founding Houses open and to compensate for the politics necessary for them to get troops in the first place.

3. The Megas cannot move or disband troops, but he alone can recruit them (Per training orders in the structure owner's SoT). Captain led stacks are moved by the Emperor or his titled Lord of the Armies (But not both! If you appoint a LoA he controls them, to regain control the Emperor must revoke his title. More instability and conflict, I love it.), but can (obviously) be poached from by the owner of any lands they pass through, etc. The Lord of the Armies has his troop command cap increased by (for example) 3. Fleets by a Lord of the Fleets, same deal applies. The Senate can revoke these titles and reassign them by a 2/3rds majority vote, the Emperor must then wait until the next Senate session to reassign them. Every noble has confiscation rights over captain led stacks, if you encouter a captain led stack you can merge with it and take any troops from it up to your cap.

4. Higher ranks can confiscate troops from lower ranks within their House in any number up to their rank cap, but only in person. If you want that Comes' army you have to go where he is and take it. Higher ranks can order the disbandment of their vassal's troops across any distance (Minor edit), however, limited only by the number of disbandments allowed to that rank per Senate session (This is to give the lower ranks some encouragement to obey their Lord's orders). I would suggest that higher ranks can confiscate from lower ranks outside of their House but only much lower ranks (Dux can take from foreign Comes, for example).

5. The Emperor and the Caesar retain their Royal Armies, but they are reduced in size a bit. The Emperor has confiscation rights over all nobles in the Empire, but he must be physically present to take troops. The Caesar has confiscation rights over all nobles below rank X (Pick one), but has to be present, etc. The Emperor can order the disbandment of one company of soldiers from any army in the field (Not garrison) per year, the Caesar can order the disbandment of one (or 2?) per Senate session.

6. Nobles have 'priority recruitment' slots just like the priority build slots, and in about the same numbers by rank. We don't want recruitment to go over the top or to allow armies to max out such that our economy can be frozen within one Megas term.

This totally discards my House Army ideas because I can see how even they require too much player tracking. Under this system the basic mechanic is thus:

Top ranks assemble armies from lower ranks, often requiring multiple generals to be in a single stack to have a very large army. Garrisons can be locked even against your own lord's confiscation, but disbandment powers can be used on garrison troops (This makes garrison dumping less effective). Field armies are subject to confiscation in person up to the higher rank's cap.

We would need consensus on how to balance the priority recruitment slots by rank, and where to go with the cap on troops commanded. I favor a low number, but that might make Houses considerably stronger than unaligned nobles such that we end up with no one unaligned.

Is there anything in this system obviously unaddressed? I intend to put this proposal in a more formal framework and have it put up as a CA next session, unless something similar or superior catches my interest first.