OOC Thread

[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!