KOTF OOC Thread

[econ21]

Please excuse my ignorance but is it possible to amend rule 5d to remove the reference to general's bodyguards. This may be too late now but counting bodyguards as heavy cavalry should make the battles more challenging.

I think I proposed this at the time that the rule was drafted but now I would prefer that we leave things as they are. Including BGs would cause problems for the Order fighting as a company - we have been aiming at 4 knights in the Company, so could only fight if the stack exceeded 10. This would be a problem to us acting alone, as we probably will have very little foot. And it would greatly limit our ability to act in support of another player - for example, we could not join a Duc who was already supported by one fellow knight.

This is not a purely self-interested argument - the whole idea of the Order OOC was to create something for our masses of RBGs to do. They don't have land, they don't have armies and they can't run for Seneschal. Stopping them even fighting in other people's battles would be even more constraining.

In terms of keeping the battles challenging, counting BGs would have done nothing to stop Tristan and Ramses stellar victories - they have been kicking the AI often with just one BG and a few scraps. The Order Company has often been unemployed - not participating in the King's battles as Tristan wanted to challenge himself. OK has not been fighting with an excessive number of BGs either.

[Ignoramus]

I think a far more effective solution, is make BG units consist of 7 men, as is done in BC. That way, it seriously imperils the life of the general if he charges headlong into the fray.

Of course, the AI may then just throw its generals away, but...

[Braden]

Welcome Braden. I have just sent a pm to Mini to see if he is still playing Henri. If I don't hear a response soon you're welcome to take him. Otherwise I can get an RGB recruited for you whenever you'd like, or you can wait for some other fm to come of age (might be a while, though).

Edit: I'd be happy to put up a poll for that rule change Vladimir suggested. We're tied for the largest faction in the game (or did we pass the ERE the past couple turns?) so we should be well able to recruit armies without needing more than one or two RGBs in them.

Thanks! I'm nearly ready for this mod now, tested my skills as the difficulty settings...just need to work out how to install the KotF mini-mod and to check that the personal mods (removing green triangles, big flags etc) won't conflict and I'm good to go!

Also, don't appear to have the line "showbanners - 1" in my .cgc file for some reason at all, though the large flags are present...want rid!!

Any info on these two matters (installing the mini-mod KotF and the missing line from my preferences) would be most welcome by PM.

Joining you soon...as for dropping me in at the deepend...judging by my performance so far on my test game I'll do surprisingly well (must be like riding a bike!).

[Ibn-Khaldun]

That "show_banners = 1" line is in the [video] section of the .cfg file.

[Vladimir]

Hey guys (and princess :flirt: ). I PM'd Zim a couple questions and he suggested I post it here. What do you think about generating small rebel stacks and IC traits for RL events?

I try to take Gontran out for walks every now and again to avoid the negative traits gained from sitting around. Since we have a large number of bodyguard units, does anyone object to the creation of small rebel stacks so generals can avoid the same thing?

Or

What about IC traits for RL actions? TinCow is going to Rome for a while, so maybe his character should get a pilgrim to Rome trait. I'm going to play soldier for a couple weeks and would like my character to gain a minor military trait. Other characters can do the same. It would require that the player be away from the game from a week or two due to extenuating circumstances.

Or, the bonus

IC traits for IC actions. A lot of characters like to drink, so maybe they should get one of the "Gets Merry" traits. If they exhibit more of the same behavior, they should continue down the line. This would also improve the, um, motivation for some wacky IC fun.

Me, I'm enjoying a few beers on an empty stomach because aLCOHol will be verboten for most of September. :barrell:

What say you?

[econ21]

My preference is to play the game as it is, otherwise there is a danger we turn from playing the AI to trying to "play" the GM to get good stuff for our characters. I don't see any basis for basing IC traits on RL actions. I can see traits for IC actions being ok - the swift to judge for Gaetan being a good example - but again would like to see them used rather sparingly. Unexpected rewards for startingly role-playing as opposed to things we script our role-playing to attain. I remember being infuriated by the high spawn of rebels in solo play of RTW, so presumably we should see some crop up naturally in game.

All that said, I would not be opposed to a more major GM created event. We were promised no more than one per 10 turns, so I figure we may see one within the next session unless things go pear shaped on their own.

I do sympathise with a governor's life potentially being dull - maybe some kind of rotation of duty could be organised? That's what I would like to see in the Order, if we ever get the numbers to carry it out. Or you could try to mix things up - holding a tournament in your town for example. I seem to remember some RL discussion about crusades being used as an outlet to rid of unemployed troublesome warriors - the idea is starting to look relevant to our game, IMO. It should not be long before a proper in-game crusade is a possibility.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Hugues stands with a prepared speech.

If the King quotes me, it is only fair that I quote his Majesty.

10 seasons ago the King addressed the Conseil concerning the English and war:

Seven years later, we were at war, declared by the King, not against the English, but the Germans. I guess we were ready for a war with the Empire, but not England. The King also said:

Would leaving the governing of the realm in the hands of others include declaring war against the Empire? Trying to cajole and then threaten the standing Seneschal into making an alliance with our sworn enemy? Or pressuring him into taking Caernarvon and Dublin, only to cast him aside when he failed to do exactly what his Majesty demanded of him? Why weren't any of these matters brought to the Conseil when it was in Session or after?

Having failed to govern the realm through an unwilling proxy and behind the back of the Conseil, the cycle begins again, yet this time dispensing with the proxy. We have an edict, 2.4, authorizing negotiations, but no specifics, no mention of an Alliance. In fact I doubt the King would even give us these crumbs without prodding. The Conseil has not been consulted on an offer of an Alliance. We have not been given the exact terms for the negotiations. Nor have we been asked about whether an Alliance with England, our old enemy, is wanted or advisable.

This election is about whether this Conseil is simply a rubber stamp or not. And if the Seneschal, the elected represenative of the Conseil, is only a Clerk or not. Are the Nobles of France to have any say in the affairs of the Kingdom? Do you want an independent Seneschal, or not one at all?

I ask for your vote, I ask for the Conseil to stand up for its rights, I ask you to take what is yours.

I also propose:

Edict 2.9: An alliance with England is authorized.

and

Edict 2.10: An alliance with England shall not be authorized, negotiated or accepted.

Our voice will be heard.

Not touching that.....

King might not like his authority questioned.... who is going to be brave and second it?

[OverKnight]

Hey, c'mon post, that's half the fun.

Much more inflammatory things have been said in a Senate/Diet/Magnaura session.

Edit: I might post my favorite "Speaking Truth to Power or Volunteering for Watchtower Duty" links later on.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

After my little stunts in WotB I am done questioning the all powerful monarch. It never ends well. for me anyway....

[Vladimir]

My preference is to play the game as it is, otherwise there is a danger we turn from playing the AI to trying to "play" the GM to get good stuff for our characters. I don't see any basis for basing IC traits on RL actions. I can see traits for IC actions being ok - the swift to judge for Gaetan being a good example - but again would like to see them used rather sparingly. Unexpected rewards for startingly role-playing as opposed to things we script our role-playing to attain. I remember being infuriated by the high spawn of rebels in solo play of RTW, so presumably we should see some crop up naturally in game.

All that said, I would not be opposed to a more major GM created event. We were promised no more than one per 10 turns, so I figure we may see one within the next session unless things go pear shaped on their own.

I do sympathise with a governor's life potentially being dull - maybe some kind of rotation of duty could be organised? That's what I would like to see in the Order, if we ever get the numbers to carry it out. Or you could try to mix things up - holding a tournament in your town for example. I seem to remember some RL discussion about crusades being used as an outlet to rid of unemployed troublesome warriors - the idea is starting to look relevant to our game, IMO. It should not be long before a proper in-game crusade is a possibility.

If you're looking for precedent I suggest we establish one. Playing the GM, playing Total War, playing KotF; it's all in the fun. We're already allowing out of game events in the counsel to affect in-game actions. Let some players who cannot actively participate in the game feel like they are still part of it.

[OverKnight]

Some of my favorites, but certainly not all inclusive.

A selection of telling off the Monarch:

Dietrich vs. Heinrich

Mandorf vs. Heinrich

Arnold vs. Siegfried et al

Peter vs. Elberhard

Matthias vs. Elberhard

Republicans vs. Royalists

[Ignoramus]

If you're looking for precedent I suggest we establish one. Playing the GM, playing Total War, playing KotF; it's all in the fun. We're already allowing out of game events in the counsel to affect in-game actions. Let some players who cannot actively participate in the game feel like they are still part of it.

I agree with econ. Traits make up what a person is. Adding them takes away the roleplaying potential.

[AussieGiant]

I agree with econ.

I understand things might be a little dull but will heat up quickly.

The Council session is becoming a little tense. That's always good for business.

[AussieGiant]

Very quiet in the game threads.

Why do I get the impression there is a flurry of activity happening on Message boards and PMs?

[OverKnight]

Well it has been an uneventful Session. I can see why people wouldn't want to be a part of it.

Also I think some of our more vocal members are on well deserved vacations unfortunately.

[ULC]

I can't do squat in the council sessions until I have some story work done

[Braden]

Ok, I am fully modded and nearly ready to join formally guys. Give me a few days to do some game tests to make sure everythings stable and to test some of the save files from here and I'll be with you.

[Zim]

Just a reminder that the Council is set to end in several hours, although there might be an extension until tomorrow (I may be too busy tonight to get the polls set up, and it only seems fair to let people propose any last minute edicts if they have to wait).

THere has been no word from Mini, so Henri is yours if you'd like him, Braden.

[AussieGiant]

Take him Braden!!

[econ21]

I am not sure if we are going to have a vote on Cecil's OOC rules change about not switching settlements from city to castle, but if so, I would like to put the case against that change. I can see it has some merit in the context of a single player game where you have many settlements. In tat context, we might follow various house rules to constrain ourselves to roleplay and raise the challenge etc.

However, this PBM is so decentralised, a player may have only one settlement or a Duchy only a few, in which case it seems a little "hairshirt" to restrict what they can do with them. For example, suppose three Duchies get castles but one just by chance does not but has several unpromising towns. Would it be so bad if they are allowed to switch one to a castle? Similarly, the Order would have liked a castle, but was only offered a town. Is there something intrinsically wrong with them converting that to a castle? I don't see a realism issue here, as the castle vs city distinction anyway is highly stylised - provinces this size would have both. And in terms of role-playing etc, it seems characterful to allow a military order to dedicate its settlement to troop recruitment and defence rather than commerce; or the Kingdom to make guns vs butter kinds of choices. I am not saying that the Order would convert Antwerp if it could - I am too much of an economist to readily want to do that - but just I don't see a case for OOC prohibition.

I don't think restricting the switching of castles and cities will have a big impact on the game balance vs the AI. We will have to balance that and raise the challenge in other ways (self-restraint and GM events). In vanilla, the restriction could have a big impact on the relative power of Duchies - without a castle, they would only recruit trash. But I have the vague impression LTC allows better troops from cities that vanilla and anyway, it nerfs foot knights and - to a lesser extent - mounted knights.

Just my 2 cents.

[AussieGiant]

Well we are thrashing the AI, which is proved to not change cities to castles and vis versa.

I think we should limit ourselves in every way possible in relation to the AI. Therefore I would vote in favour of us not being able to make castle/city changes.

What's even better. It as simple to implement as possible. Meaning there is absolutely nothing for us to do in the game or out of it.

[OverKnight]

In the past games based off of M2, there were only a few times settlements were switched. Zagreb was unique, it was switched to a castle and then back to a city.

I think this will only be an early game issue. Usually territory seized later is too well developed to be switched without a major sacrifice of buildings.

Also, I think there are natural brakes in the game on switching settlements. It's relatively expensive and yields few immediate benefits. Especially in LTC, where, if I remember correctly, unit recruitment has been detached from wall or castle upgrades and relies on specific buildings such as barracks, bowyers and stables.

[ULC]

Hmmm...quick question, does the current system require an edict to switch between a castle/city?

[KnightnDay]

Just a reminder that the Council is set to end in several hours, although there might be an extension until tomorrow (I may be too busy tonight to get the polls set up, and it only seems fair to let people propose any last minute edicts if they have to wait).

THere has been no word from Mini, so Henri is yours if you'd like him, Braden.

I'm ready to start voting. Let's see some polls.

[OverKnight]

Hmmm...quick question, does the current system require an edict to switch between a castle/city?

A quick review of the rules shows that it's not mentioned at all. The decision is the territory's owner as part of setting a build queue. The Seneschal can choose to fund it or not as with other buildings.

Of course a land owning vassal in a House who chooses to "renovate" without the blessing of his superiors might be in for a interesting time.

[AussieGiant]

Well again I would say no because it will inconvenience us which is a good thing.

It will create lines of march that may be quite long in order for us to get professional troops.

It will create the need for houses and orders to co-ordinate with each other to get certain troop types thus creating tension, agreements and friction.

It creates a very interesting dynamic with province allocation and an added level of intrigue.

Finally it means that we may not have a regional castle which can pump out nice professional troops in a particular theatre. A nice limitation in my view.

All in all, it's a nice inhibitor against our already considerable advantage over the AI.

[Braden]

I will take Henri then. I still need to take one of the KotF save files to test fully but the current French campaign I'm testing is running fine with all mods installed.

I will test a save file tomorrow night.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Any plans for a Library update?

[Braden]

Ok, problem.

I have taken the current save file KOTF-1095-5.sav and unfortunately it won't load. It goes through the loading screen but then just kicks me back to the "continue campaign/load game" screen.

Is this an issue encountered before?

I'll try another .sav file now and see though.

[OverKnight]

Make sure you have M2 installed with Kingdoms, LTC and the latest patch. Links to those can be found at the bottom of the FAQ thread. A save that won't load might indicate that you're running an incompatible version of the game.