KOTF OOC Thread

[Ignoramus]

Here's my two cents.

In KotR, we did not have RBG's. Thus, in the early game, General's Bodyguards were scarce. At that stage, there was no rule in place to recruit RBG's, so the loss of an avatar was devastating to the faction, and to you personally.

Consequently, we saw far fewer massacres of the AI. Heavy cavalry was scarce, and so there were far few exploits on the AI.

Another consequence was the slower pace of expansion. So far, in less that one term, we have conquered Caenarvon, Valencia, Zaragoza, Metz, Bruges, Antwerp, and Staufen - a total of 7 provinces!

In KotR, in Kaiser Heinrich's first term of 20 turns, we have conquered Bern, Hamburg, Metz, and Brandenburg - only 4 provinces in twice the time.

Thus you can already see the vast difference between the two games.

Another point is that the King hasn't assigned any provinces except Metz to Lorraine. It means it is very hard for players like myself to get into the game. What's the point in taking initiative if there's no reward. Also, only 6 people will be able to run for Seneschal next term, which means it will be largely uninteresting for the bulk of the player base.

[Vladimir]

Well, with a handful of candidates, the politics are far more interesting. I hoped politics would limit our expansion but then the war with the Germans popped up. I'm still kinda "meh" about both the ambush and the "abduction."

[ULC]

I hope soon to resolve ANY issues ANYONE has with boredom due to politics, soon. Just waiting on one man to get it rolling .

[OverKnight]

Valid points, but many can be addressed IC. If you want the pool of candidates to be expanded for Seneschal, have a friendly Duke propose a CA. If you want some the new lands distributed, gather support for an edict calling for that.

Ignoramus has a good point that the replacable nature of avatars might be contributing to in game aggression compared to KotR.

I agree to a certain extent. We have more avatars in the field, the Order for example, and this allows us to expand more. While some people might be more cavalier with their avatars since there will be a replacement in the wings, I'm as careful with Hugues as I was with Otto and Matthias. More so when I'm shepherding other people's avatars. There is a mandated five turn break between avatars in the rules if one is killed.

But I also think that GH as Heinrich curtailed some expansion at the beginning of KotR to focus on development. I also tried to do the same in LotR. Tristan as King has exerted a more expansionistic influence. Granted, he isn't Seneschal, but he did start the war with the Germans. Like the approach or not, it's allowed within the rules.

In individual battles we are winning, however this has not stopped the AI from having several stacks larger and better equipped than our own. Personally, I have hesitated to face them in the open field. So I don't think it's as overmatched as everyone is claiming. If we keep up this pace, we will be checked at some point. Either by other factions dog piling or by excommunication.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I generally don't blitz as a rule in any of my campaigns. I just followed my usual protocol when I took the first turn as Chancellor in KotR. What's happened here would be considered extremely fast expansion for me.

[OverKnight]

I'm trying to set up a private social group for Lorraine. The group is up and running, but how do I invite KnightnDay and woad&fangs into it?

Edit: Checked the FAQ, which I should have done in the first place, and got it.

[econ21]

I am pretty happy with the RBGs and the fast expansion so far. We have to strike a balance between challenge and giving people things to do. It would be frustrating not to have an avatar and sit out several months of the game. I think people are more involved with their characters that they would be if they did not have avatars - there are so many good backstories now posted etc. And given that we do have so many avatars, it would be frustrating to have just five provinces at peace and so have most players twiddling their thumbs without the prospect of advancement. The King now has a decent number of provinces so that each Duchy can bid for them and several Knights can hope to become Counts etc.

The only issue is the level of challenge from the AI. Right now, it's kind of tense because we are over-extended. If we autoresolved our battles, we would fold. There might be a case for a GM "event" soon to bring this home - e.g. a German counter-invasion - and balance things up a little. Also, if we can continue restrain ourselves from fighting England or other factions for a while, it would be good. One war - with Germany - gives us something to do. It's if we start steamrollering everyone, then we will become a superpower and it will become less interesting. Lusted's guidelines were to only fight one faction for the first 50 turns or so, giving the rest time to build up. Germany is not a bad choice for that one faction for France to fight - HRE is big enough to take a beating and not fold immediately. With England, we are so intertwined, it will be hard to sustain a prolonged war. However, I'd like to see us try. Personally, I'd rather see this game depict a hard fought 100 year war with England than swiftly create a new Roman Empire - at least for a while. This would no doubt require some GM intervention.

[AussieGiant]

I think in the end we have come to a consensus to leave things as it is and just be mindful of the next Seneschal's time in office and further unrestrained expansion.

Tristan is a bit of a freak and in isolation it is not catastrophic to the balance of power. Although if those players currently on the bench turn out to be as good we will have ourselves a real troubling situation.

As they say in Aussie Rules.

"Fair Bump Play On It's Just A Bit Of Claret!!"

Claret = blood.

[OverKnight]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do feel challenged. I've got the same back against the wall feeling I had when fighting in the cataclysm. I've been running around like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to prevent the Germans from crossing over the Rhine in force.

We've inflicted losses at Staufen and Dijon, but they're still going strong. There's no way I'd face them in a "fair" fight, unless I had something close to parity in numbers, which hasn't happened yet. If lose my archers I have nothing to replace them with. My only cavalry are the avatars. My best replacement troops would be town militia or peasants. Mercs are a limited and fickle option.

So, I don't think we need an event, at least on my front.

[_Tristan_]

I am pretty happy with the RBGs and the fast expansion so far. We have to strike a balance between challenge and giving people things to do. It would be frustrating not to have an avatar and sit out several months of the game. I think people are more involved with their characters that they would be if they did not have avatars - there are so many good backstories now posted etc. And given that we do have so many avatars, it would be frustrating to have just five provinces at peace and so have most players twiddling their thumbs without the prospect of advancement. The King now has a decent number of provinces so that each Duchy can bid for them and several Knights can hope to become Counts etc.

The only issue is the level of challenge from the AI. Right now, it's kind of tense because we are over-extended. If we autoresolved our battles, we would fold. There might be a case for a GM "event" soon to bring this home - e.g. a German counter-invasion - and balance things up a little. Also, if we can continue restrain ourselves from fighting England or other factions for a while, it would be good. One war - with Germany - gives us something to do. It's if we start steamrollering everyone, then we will become a superpower and it will become less interesting. Lusted's guidelines were to only fight one faction for the first 50 turns or so, giving the rest time to build up. Germany is not a bad choice for that one faction for France to fight - HRE is big enough to take a beating and not fold immediately. With England, we are so intertwined, it will be hard to sustain a prolonged war. However, I'd like to see us try. Personally, I'd rather see this game depict a hard fought 100 year war with England than swiftly create a new Roman Empire - at least for a while. This would no doubt require some GM intervention.

My thoughts on the game so far almost mirrors yours, Econ...

The reason why I laucnhed ionto the war against the HRE was :

1/ to provide some of our avatars something to do.

2/ to provide challenge by stretching our resources. We all know that the AI on the battlemaps lacks in a lot of departments but providing challenge on the Campaign map, which I hope Philippe did compensated for that.

My last moves politically also tend towards what Econ has been broaching though the 100-years war will certainly be fought against the HRE rather than against England. And we could certainly do with a "backlash" event should we continue our expansion at such a pace.

I also tried, IC, to throw every possible obstacle in our way (preventing recruitment, encouraging non-military buildings,...) while creating fun battles for myself and others I hope.

And don't you worry about land allotment, Philippe will begin the lottery soon


Maybe it would be time to make your wishlist to Santa Claus

[GeneralHankerchief]

Tristan, you besieged Franfurt with the HRE Emperor who was in it.

At ratio 3:7 against, he seems to think he has a chance against you and 2 regiments of mounted sargents.

I guess he was wrong. Happy slaughtering, it would be sporting if you could take some casualties.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local...id=199&id=4992