OOC Thread

[Zim]

Do you have patch 1.5 for Kingdoms? That created some problems for a hotseat a friend and I were playing. Just be wary of the link in the Citadel. It leads to a version that doesn't work for people who bought the American non Gold versions. Better to get the patch from Totalwar.com.

[Cecil XIX]

Hmm, not sure what to say. Where did you download LTC from? Do the loading screens show up? I'd recommend going to twcenter.net's LTC Forum and asking for help.

Since it looks like this could take a while, I'm going to go ahead and move the game forward now. If Ramses hasn't fixed things by the time the next turn is over I'll extend it.

EDIT: Wait, scratch that. Ramses, you can still start campaigns, right? If you start up a campaign in the early era as the French I'll let you choose a character, as well as decide if you want to do some recruiting/constructing, for this turn. You have 1000 florins to spend.

[Ramses II CP]

Okay, I'll do that tonight and work on fixing the problem afterward. Will get back to you.

[Ramses II CP]

I'll take Perrin Gassou. I still have no idea why I can't load the save, but presuming no one else has yet I'd like to lay siege to Caen with Perrin, his two archers, and one company of spearmen. Mind doing that for me Cecil? For the time being no recruitment, per the King's request.

[Ramses II CP]

Oh, and for siege equipment, three ladders and start a ram.

[Cecil XIX]

It shall be done. I'll take the save tomorrow.

[Ramses II CP]

I sorted it out, up and running now. It was just an install order issue.

I'll upload a save with Caen under siege shortly.

[Ramses II CP]

http://www.mediafire.com/file/uyzwze...lor-1080-4.zip

[ULC]

Sorry for being so slow, life keeps getting in the way. I guess I'll take that guy no one wants, Raoulet Poitevin

[TinCow]

Reading the Reports thread, it seems like this is proceeding relatively smoothly. I've got a few more questions now:

1) Cecil XIX: How long does it take you to do the start-of-turn financial summaries? Do you feel like this is a job you'd be willing to do for the entire game?
2) Everyone else: How much of a burden has it been to do math when doing all purchases and recruitments?
3) General: Is PvP going to be included in the final version of the game? If so, what form will it take?

[TheFlax]

Since the math is simply additions and subtractions, it takes me about 5 minutes to calculate everything. I'd say the longest is to make sure you haven't missed any units and make sure everything is ok. In my opinion, its a small price to pay to have more control over your domain. It really feels like being the governor of a semi-autonomous province.

[Cecil XIX]

Reading the Reports thread, it seems like this is proceeding relatively smoothly. I've got a few more questions now:

1) Cecil XIX: How long does it take you to do the start-of-turn financial summaries? Do you feel like this is a job you'd be willing to do for the entire game?
3) General: Is PvP going to be included in the final version of the game? If so, what form will it take?

1) For the first part, it depends on whether or not people take their saves. In the first turn saves were taken gradually over the course of the turn, and after each save I could calculate an individual's numbers. By the time the turn was over, there wasn't much left to to do. For this last turn, the opposite is true. Right now I feel confident that I can indeed continue to do this for the duration of the game.

3)Strickly speaking, there's nothing to prevent PVP from happening right now. In order to formalize the rules, I'd simply add a statement along the lines of "If you want to attack somebody's holdings, move your forces adjacent to theirs and publically state your intent." I rather like the idea of allowing surprise attacks, as it promotes territoriality and suspicion.

[Cecil XIX]

Since this is the fifth turn, it will be extended so that we can discuss how the game is going so far.

So, what do you guys think? How are you liking the rules? Any additions, changes, or subtractions you'd like to propose?

[ULC]

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?

[Ramses II CP]

So far it seems to work fine with me. We won't really see a test of the rules until we develop a PvP situation IMHO.

[Cecil XIX]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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?

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!

[Cecil XIX]

Zim performed an illegal move by moving and disbanding the soldiers of the King who were stationed in Toulouse.

The illegality of this may not have been sufficiently clear in the rules. Therefore, I am proposing that rule IV.6 be amended as follows.

Whereas rule IV.6 originally read, in it's entirety,

"Players can move units under their control anywhere they wish. This means they can start wars with other factions, and players."

It shall now read:

"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, unless that player makes an illegal move."

In any case, since this is the first time this kind of situation has ocurred, I've corrected the mistake while still moving Zim's units in the same manner.

[Zim]

I had soldiers belonging to who in Toulouse?

I assumed anything in one of my settlements had to be mine.

[Cecil XIX]

I had soldiers belonging to who in Toulouse?

I assumed anything in one of my settlements had to be mine.

Indeed, that would have been the correct response in every other PBeM so I don't blame you. Does my rules clarifcation help?

Basically, if you suddently notice some soldiers in your settlement that you didn't recruit, than instead of saying "Hey, I've got some extra soldiers I can move." you should think "Hey, who put these here?"

I'm thinking of adding rules allowing players to bar other player's units from entering their settlements, as well as throwing someone else's units out. How does that sound to anyone?

[Zim]

My thought was more "Hmm, troops in Toulouse, guess I had recruited them".

I would certainly approve of a rule that required permission before troops could be moved into someone else's settlement. At the very least some kind of notification. Otherwise keeping track of what troops in your settlements are yours and aren't could be very confusing if the faction grows much.

Indeed, that would have been the correct response in every other PBeM so I don't blame you. Does my rules clarifcation help?

Basically, if you suddently notice some soldiers in your settlement that you didn't recruit, than instead of saying "Hey, I've got some extra soldiers I can move." you should think "Hey, who put these here?"

I'm thinking of adding rules allowing players to bar other player's units from entering their settlements, as well as throwing someone else's units out. How does that sound to anyone?

[Zim]

Nothing to see here... *whistles*

I am having some time issues. Because of the extra time needed to count up unit upkeep (especially after battles where every unit's upkeep may change) and settlement income (which does change every turn, a little) I find the turns taking rather longer than in most games I'm in. I also find myself forgetting the exact makeup of my armies after playing turns in multiple other games, which was part of the reason I didn't notice new troops had appeared in my castle.

I may be a bit absent in the near future, although things might clear up a bit when I'm no longer Megas in LotR. If it would be better for a more active player to take the Prince I'd understand.

[Cecil XIX]

New save:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/bncm5z...Valor-1093.zip

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.

[Cecil XIX]

At this point, things seem to be running smoothly enough that I can safely say the basic mechanics are sound. Does anybody agree/disagree?

In any case, there are a few points that need clarification.

1. Rules - I'm worried that the way I've organized and written my rules isn't as clear and concise as in LotR. Do any of you think they need to be changed.

2. PVP - Ramses said that this test should also test the PVP, something I agree with. If we all agree that the rules have been found to be sound, then I think we should end this test with a Civil War event, as is custom.

3. Next step - If the test is successful, then the question is what to do next? Although I chose France as the faction for the test, I must say I'd like to see it used in the main game as well. France was, at the start of this time period, supposed to be an example of Feudalism in it's most raw and delicate form. I think my rules fit there pretty well. I definitely want to play a faction that whose structure is essentially Fuedalism.

The problem is there aren't many factions like that bigger or as big than France. So either we start as England, the HRE (again), or we go to a smaller faction with a bit of a wait until we can get RGBs.

Granted, there are effectively only three players anyway. So we could start the main game as Poland or Hungary, recruit new people as new generals become available and once we get RGBs start a general recruitment thread.

The final option is to let the Civil War, if we do one, to mark the transition from the Test Game to the main game.

Any thoughts?

[Cecil XIX]

Bump.

I need your opinions guys, so I can judge where to take this next.

[TheFlax]

Sorry about that, meant to write something but I kept pushing it back.

Rulewise I haven't seen many problems, except maybe a little confusion about unit ownership. I doubt the rules can help much in that department, players simply have to be vigilant. A part from that, I found that everything ran pretty smoothly.

As for a Civil War, well I'll admit I'm not a big fan of PvP myself, especially when there are no real stakes. Since this is a test game I care little about my character and since the PvP will be like KotR/LotR (right?), I wouldn't think it needs much testing. Then again, if you and Ramses want to duke it out, I have no problem with that.

For a main game, I'm not too keen on France, the starting avatars having already too much history for me (from two test games). Anywhere else though would be fine by me, Poland and Hungary sound like great choices to me. As you said we are three for now and other people can join easily enough as we expand.

Finally, as I haven't invested myself much in my character, I'd much rather start a new game. I usually approach the test games from purely a rule testing standpoint and not a story standpoint. In a new game I promise to be much more involved.

[Ramses II CP]

With limited involvement and slim character development a civil war scenario would really only be a single PvP battle at this point. I think we know how that would come out, but I'm totally up for trying it.

As far as the faction for the actual game, France would work fine for me, but I think Poland would be fun as well. More of a rough and tumble background and potentially a more difficult path to expansion. France has lots of room to grow, like the Byz in LotR, and so it may be awhile before real conflict begins within the player base.

[ULC]

I'd also vote for Poland, on the basis that it is essentially one theater, not several which are separated by large expanses of water and vast movement killing mountains.

Hungary is another great choice

[mini]

england! or maybe the teutons or the templars? :D

anyway, this looks interesting. When the main game lifts up, i'll read up on the rules (and probably join :D)

[Cecil XIX]

All right, I think now is the time to stop the test game. I'll get the main game ready, and post it tomorrow.

[Cecil XIX]

All right, I've decided that the we're going to play as the Kingdom of Hungary in an Early Era Campaign. There are three avatars: King Laszlo, Prince Kalman, and a general named Istvan. The King will start with the settlements of Budapest and Zagreb, the Prince with Bran, and Istvan will have Ragusa.

I'll be playing as Istvan. I'm giving Ramses II CP first pick of the other two, because he hasn't played a FL yet. Since this is just a regular campaign in LTC, you both can just start a campaign to get a sense of things. Once Ramses makes his pick I'll post the first save and we can start the first turn.