KOTF OOC Thread

[econ21]

I know a couple players here who could probably take them with a general and a peasant unit.

This idea prompts a number of thoughts which probably don't need saying, but I want to vent so here goes. It's not my place or anyone else's to tell other players how to fight battles, but here's how I see it.

Firstly, I think of these kind of games as historical role-playing. I personally don't find that convincing when it is done by exploiting the AI. Gamey tactics just drag me out of character. At both a strategic and a tactical level, it does not make much sense to talk of taking out a well defended settlement or large army with just a general and peasant unit. Personally, I enjoy reading of a hard fought battle, using plausible tactics, written up in a good AAR. Just being handed a post-battle savegame with no write up does not contribute much IMO.

Second, there should be absolutely no reloading of battles - as an honour thing, you get one chance at the battle and stick with that. When we put up tables of kill-loss ratios, I know there is an incentive to use your general - with his high HP and 2 HP regenerating escort - to rip apart the enemy, but that is going to come with a risk. I know I was guilty of those tactics in KotR but I paid dearly for it with losing Elberhard at quite the wrong time. I am going to a lot more cautious this time round. With Lusted's mod, the risks will be higher than in KotR.

Third, players fighting battles should be extremely careful of other player's avatars. With so many RBGs, it's inevitable we are going to have multi-general battles early on. I have a vested interest because my character is surely going to be one of those secondary generals. I think it's just subjective bias, but my impression is that a general dies much easier if they are the second, third etc in the stack - not the commanding general. I think actually they have the same HPs regardless, but I guess we are just less aware of them and so accidents happen. Bear in mind that people invest a lot in their characters and it hurts them personally to lose them. Of course, they are placing them at risk by stacking with you and IC your commanding general may be a rash SOB, but still I think OOC consideration should come into play regardless. Think of it as a hard tackle in a friendly game of football - whatever the in game motivation, it's best to try hard to avoid it. That means using concentration of force, breaking the enemy's morale, letting the RBGs get off good charges, pulling them out if they get bogged down, avoiding charging spears unless they are already engaged and you have their flank etc. If you are a rash SOB, risk your own avatar if you must but try to let your seconds escape the carnage. A few player defeats will do the game good anyway, so pulling a punch is not the end of the world.

[AussieGiant]

At the risk of sounding rude, and this is my opinion...

...I would like to follow up econ's post with a more straight forward statement.

Replaying battles or playing ahead with this particular save, or a save created to mirror our game is total utter total

Likewise exploits and other such tactical moves are further instances of conduct.

If you want to take this type of action, then do it on your own time and in your own game. This one is being shared by 20 other people and it is totally inappropriate to ruin it by this type of conduct.

I certainly understand it is tempting, especially when there is a certain level of competition going on. The temptation comes from trying to succeed and be successful in front of peers and friends here on the board. That is perfectly understandable. However the potential damage is large and absolutely inconceivable when you calculate the time and effort being placed into this game by all the participants.

I hope everyone here plays the game straight up, if you take a risk and you pay the price, then I would sincerely hope everyone here rolls with the punches and does not call for a "rewind". Likewise other players will be more than likely to accept accidental death when they occur...and they will occur.

I will add a disclaimer that many players here are vets and will probably know exactly how the game behaves and what the starting moves are likely to be in this particular mod. My statements are not directed to this type of knowledge.

That's a bit of a rant, my apologies, but I take no words back. This is an indication of the passion I hold on the topic and the near zero tolerance I have on this issue. Please take this as context when reading.

[GeneralHankerchief]

AG, this is why I love you.

[Vladimir]

I don't care what anyone says. Killing 1,000 men with one balista is awesome!

[Zim]

Figures I miss a day and we get serious posts.

First, I did take note of changed avatar teleportation requests on the last posts. I am also saving the pms of requests sent to me. I've left them marked as unread to make them easier to find when I can sit down and do the teleportations. Just wanted to let people know in case they were checking their pm read receipts.

I'm sorry it's taking long. A combination of being busy, not being very experienced with console stuff, and just plain letting myself get distracted. I will be sitting down and getting as much console stuff done as possible tomorrow early afternoon. Hopefully if I don't run into any problems that will be enough time to finish it all. If not I'll just stay up late tomorrow night and do it... I'm sorry for any problems the delay may have caused. I'm still getting used to gming this type of game.

To Vladimir, Econ has it right. Edicts can be as specific or not as you want, and can be about almost anything. Generally they don't have to be Seneschal-proof so as to leave the Seneschal no options, unless you have terrible relations with one or all candidates. However, if a Seneschal claimed there were no extra forces to conquer province x as stipulated by edict such and such, consequences would be IC, he wouldn't get in trouble for breaking a rule (like he would if he broke one of the permanant rules), so there might be some situations where you'd want to word it to prevent weaseling out as such as possible.

Econ21 I agree that taking settlements that have ok garrisons with a single general's unit breaks rp (part of the reason I was ok with buffing starting AI stacks). to some extent it can't be helped, I think. I can't really stop people, but I hope it doesn't happen often. I suspect once we grow a bit anyone wanting to conquer territory will be able to get an army anyway, part of the reason I decentralized prioritized units a little. Hopefully that won't be too big a headache for wouldbe Seneschals.

I'd like to reiterate what you said about using other people's generals. Even if nothing else will convince someone, at least consider one could be making longterm enemies if generals that fight with them tend not to survive. Personally I don't think it will be too much of a problem (I was terrified of using generals I had command of, tended to risk and overuse my own instead...).

Reloading is definitely cheating.

AG Agreed. I'm not sure we'll see any problems, but it's good to bring these and the things Econ brought up early to get them out of the way.

[Ituralde]

Very good points from all of you. It's sometimes good to state the obvious at the start.

Maybe for those who weren't with us during KotR. There was a time where my lowly avatar, who thanks to M2s freak rules was heir to the throne, was fighting in the same stack as the Kaiser himself. The player of the Kaiser, Warluster asked me to do some battles for him since he didn't have the time. Under the KotR rules this kind of subbing was still allowed. There were three encounters with Danish forces. The first two were the hardest fought and I wasn't even sure whether I should take on the third stack. Then I saw that it was mainly artillery and my force was far superior. During the battle itself I charged with my own bodyguard towards the hill where the artillery lay while the main army made a slow approach. I tried to keep the Kaiser safe. That was until he turned into a ball of flame from one lucky catapult shot! Mere seconds(!!) before the enemy army routed!

You do not want to know how shocked I was, and how tempted to just reload that stupid last battle. I really was. Here I had just killed off the avatar entrusted to me by a fellow gamer, who was the Kaiser(!!) and I incidentally pushed my own avatar to the position of Kaiser! I'm pretty sure Warluster was a little mad at me. But I didn't reload.

And if you look back at the timeline of KotR and all the events that transpired after the battle above, it would have been a royal shame had I truly reloaded.

[_Tristan_]

Just to let you know : I will be away this week-end with almost inexistant internet access, so if this is not a bother, could the Council period be extended to Monday...

It would be a damn shame if the King didn't take part in deciding the Fate of his Kingdom...

[AussieGiant]

Yes well it's the third email like that I've written.

I should just save it somewhere and roll it out when necessary.

[Ituralde]

So on another topic entirely I will be gone the next three weeks! Happy camping through the Scottish Highlands!

I sent some votes to Zim in the hope that they will still be counted. I look forward to seeing your progress when I return.

Also sorry for the short notice, but I wanted to avoid meta-gaming and had also hoped to get the first Council Session over before I leave.

Have fun!

Ituralde

[AussieGiant]

thanks for the support GH

[TinCow]

For the record, I would consider re-fighting a battle to try and get a better result to be a violation of the Throne Room Code of Conduct.

[Vladimir]

A procedural question for the group: How specific to edicts need to be?

There is talk of making trade agreements with the AI factions but nothing formal is proposed in-game. When I play, I secure trade rights with the AI as a matter of course. There is nothing to loose from securing trade rights. Do we need to specifically state which factions we want to trade with or can we do it automatically with every faction?

[econ21]

A procedural question for the group: How specific to edicts need to be?

There is talk of making trade agreements with the AI factions but nothing formal is proposes in-game. When I play, I secure trade rights with the AI as a matter of course. There is nothing to loose from securing trade rights. Do we need to specifically state which factions we want to trade with or can we do it automatically with every faction?

The way I see it, edicts are to usually to constrain the Seneschal to do something (except that a few like declarations of war empower him). So generally I think they are things you would want to propose because you don't think a Seneschal will freely do it or because you are unsure he would. In such cases, you might want very specific legislation as the Seneschal may try to lawyer his way out of doing what you want to constrain him to do.

For example, with trade agreements, an unconstrained Seneschal might go to town with them and trade with everyone. Consequently, as you say, they might not be the kind of thing you would typically need to legislate on - as a normal Seneschal would make the agreements anyway. However, there still may be role-playing reasons to legislate. For example, an economically minded Councillor might want to be absolutely sure that the Seneschal does make agreements and propose an edict to that effect. Others with an enmity of a specific faction may oppose agreements with that faction etc.

[Vladimir]

Thank you.

The alliance with Scotland was kinda obvious but needed for in-game reasons. I wanted the diplomat to have visibility on the capital to help keep them in the game. Hopefully trade is an automatic thing but money must be spent on diplomats and etc.