Announcing an exciting and radically new WotS-style PBEM!
The purpose of V&V is to revive the basic concept found in the KotR test game, but taken a step further and hopefully more successful! Like the KotR test this is not intended to be a full-fledged game, all though it could last much longer than previous test games if people are having fun.
V&V will be very different from other games of it's type. Each player will control an avatar who, although part of a Kingdom/Empire, has a personal demesne which he controls like his own mini-faction. You'll have your own personal income, your own armies, navies and agents which you pay from your own treasury, and you're free to work in conjunction with your fellow countrymen or treat your vassalage like a mere formality. They'll be no Chancellor, since nothing belongs to the Kingdom as a whole. I'll be advancing the turns myself at regular intervals. Also, we'll be using Lands to Conqueror Gold, which requires the Kingdoms Expansion pack.
I've got the rules written down, but I'm going to sleep on it and reread them tomorrow to make sure I've got everything, as well as get them better organized on paper. I'm looking for two to four people to join me in testing these rules, any more than that will have to wait until generals become available ingame.
Anyways, feel free to ask any questions if you're interested! I'll give a more detailed explanation tomorrow, but I'll be happy to answer any questions in the meantime!
Looks like I'm going to have to buy Kingdoms at last, eh?
Is LTC Gold compatible with the Steam version of Kingdoms anyone?
Evidently you can, as the LTC installation instructions say "If you have Steam you will need to use the Medieval II Launcher to run the mod."
Originally Posted by TheFlax
I'm in! Looks very interesting and I'm curious to see how you intend to make it work.
The key is the add_money console command. Aside from giving each player a 'King's Purse' all the income and expenses will be what they are in the game, so as long as I know what they *should* be at the start of each turn I can make it so, without having to worry about the inscrutable methods that Medieval II uses.
I am watching this test game with immense interest. This is the first truly new game idea I've seen in the Throne Room in a long time, and I hope it's very successful. I have a few questions to satisfy my own curiosity, if you don't mind.
1) Who is going to keep track of all the financial information? Is Cecil going to do it for everyone?
2) If no one is paying bodyguard upkeep or wages, where is that money coming from?
3) Following on from #2, are the financial figures going to be balanced with all of the actual in-game numbers, or will it be simplified in some manner?
1) Who is going to keep track of all the financial information? Is Cecil going to do it for everyone?
2) If no one is paying bodyguard upkeep or wages, where is that money coming from?
3) Following on from #2, are the financial figures going to be balanced with all of the actual in-game numbers, or will it be simplified in some manner?
1) I will be keeping track of all financial information, but players are encouraged to do it themselves as well. That way mistakes are more likely to be caught.
2) This game requires use of the add_money command at the start of every turn.
3) Every effort will be made to adhere to the ingame ledger, aside from free General's Bodyguards and each player receiving bonus income. As you know, the ledger does accurately describe how much money is gained/lost each turn; it is frequently wrong. But using the add_money command I keep the same mechanics for money generation in the game, but I ensure that they also come out the way I want.
Originally Posted by TheFlax
Here is my accounting: (Correct me if I made any mistakes)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
1000 (Starting Sum)
+600 (Donation from the King) -1600 (Town Watch in Dijon)
0
To reiterate, the income and upkeep a player has at any given turn is added/removed at the beginning of the next turn.
So the money the King gave Guillemot does not reach him until next turn. Is the rule not clearly worded enough? A player's treasury will only change during the course of a turn if they receive money from completing a mission or taking a settlement. All other changes only come into effect at the beginning of the turn.
So since you can't afford to build a Town Watch you've spent no money, and will start next turn with 2196 florins.
In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
Posts
4,138
Re: OOC Thread
Only a few -
Financial calculations could be made clearer. At first, I was confused for which turn I was doing my calculations. However, this is only wording, not something wrong with the financial system.
Control of Units in battle being led by another player - as is shown, You kind of abused my men and I gained nothing for it. Had I been in the battle, I would have ignored your men and fought it out myself, with only just my men, and would have suffered fewer casualties. We need to be able to select whether or not we wish to have our men participate in battle. Otherwise we can have some disgruntled players being abused by someone with more command.
To solve the above, make it that separate players must maintain separate stacks, so that they cannot merge. If a battle occurs, the player not playing also needs more say - does he wish to act as reserve (as I would have wanted), or does he wish to take to the front? A combination? This will keep players happy I think.
Finally, I'd love to be able to have multiple avatars to control. This may be unreasonable however, so we could limit ourselves - maybe to an Adjutant?
Financial calculations could be made clearer. At first, I was confused for which turn I was doing my calculations. However, this is only wording, not something wrong with the financial system.
Control of Units in battle being led by another player - as is shown, You kind of abused my men and I gained nothing for it. Had I been in the battle, I would have ignored your men and fought it out myself, with only just my men, and would have suffered fewer casualties. We need to be able to select whether or not we wish to have our men participate in battle. Otherwise we can have some disgruntled players being abused by someone with more command.
To solve the above, make it that separate players must maintain separate stacks, so that they cannot merge. If a battle occurs, the player not playing also needs more say - does he wish to act as reserve (as I would have wanted), or does he wish to take to the front? A combination? This will keep players happy I think.
Finally, I'd love to be able to have multiple avatars to control. This may be unreasonable however, so we could limit ourselves - maybe to an Adjutant?
1. Fair enough, now that I've actually been doing it I think I can state it more clearly. What if I were to change rules 1.9 and 1.10 like so?
1.9 The formula for calculating income each turn is this:
(Money Carried Over From Last Turn)+(Personal Income)+(Settlements)+(Merchant Trade)-(Agent's Wages)-(Army Upkeep)-(Construction)-(Recruitment)+(Diplomacy)+(Sacking/Ransoming)=(Money At Start Of Current Turn)
1.10 - Personal income, Settlement income, Merchant Trade, Agent's Wages, and Army Upkeep are determined as they are immediately before the 'End Turn' button is pressed. Money for construction, recruitment, diplomacy, sacking, ransoming and missions are added/subtracted at the moment the change occurs. You cannot spend more on those things than what you have in your treasury. There is one exception this, in that you can go in to debt to pay the ransom of your faction's soldiers.
2. As an aside, it was the King's men who took the walls and Raoulet's men helped take the square from the enemy cavalry. I must confess I made a mistake here, as I placed to much importance on the 'Spear' and not enough on the 'Militia' I had the Spearmen engage the cavalry first and then the bodyguards when it should have been the other way around.
You bring up a good point, but I think it's an IC point rather than an OOC point. That kind of conflict is hopefully what makes this game interesting - don't lend your soldiers to someone you don't trust.
And as for not getting anything back - Well, letting the King use your soldiers for his own purposes is part of the feudal system. What you get in return is the knowledge that if you're in trouble the King will (should) marshall everything at his disposal in order to protect you.
This concept is essential to this PBEM; in KotR and LotR it was basically assumed at vassals were serfs and were obligated to do whatever their Lords. But in reality Lords had obligations to their vassals as well as vice-versa, and either party could conceivably find itself in a situation where it could claim the other had violated the contract through inaction, rendering said the feudal contract null and void.
Your alternative proposal is interesting, but I don't think it's enforcable. If a player wanted to ignore advice he could simply not tell anyone how the battle was fought. We can't change that. The current system leads you to judge me by results, which can't be faked.
Finally, I want to make it clear, in case it wasn't, that PVP is allowed in this game. It's basically the same as in LotR, except that you can attack anybody at anytime without restriction. Be suspicious!
One issue, I had sent some of my sergeant spearmen from Dijon east towards the crossing to England and they've been merged with the King's stack. These were the men from the very start of the game so they're definitely 'mine' but I actually don't have any idea if they can be taken like that or not. If they're still mine to control I'd like to move them out of the King's stack and as far in the direction of Caernarvon as possible. They're the unit at the end of his stack, with movement remaining.
In the current save I left them where they were since I don't know exactly how the rules handle captain stacks.
My apologies, what I did was very much against the rules. Since this is the second time confusion over this issue has arisen, and it's with a different person, I have edited Rule IV.6 in the hopes of improving clarity. That rule now reads:
Players can move units under their control anywhere they wish. This means they can start wars with other factions, and players. No one can move a players soldiers except that player, and a player can move his soldiers under any circumstances provided the move is legal.
Fortunately what I did will not delay that unit of Sergeant Spearmen from reaching Ramses II CP, he is perfectly free to move it along out of the King's Stack, otherwise I will send it on it's way before the end of the turn.
I see now that keeping track of your soldiers is as important as keeping track of your income. I would advise everyone to do both of these things, in order to prevent yourself from accidentally taking people's unts or having them taken.
Test Game OOC Thread
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Bookmarks