Out of character thread III

[TinCow]

That is the problem though: the purpose of a PBM is to roleplay, not metagame.

It's still just a game and the whole point is to have fun. Sometimes realism needs to take a backseat to provide greater amusement. If you doubt our ability to crush absolutely everything in our path, turn off fow and consider the military strengths of our enemies:

France: equivalent of 3.5 stacks (1 in africa)
Denmark: equivalent of 1 stack
Spain: equivalent of 1 stack
Portugal: equivalent of .5 stack
Moors: equivalent of 1 stack
Milan: equivalent of .5 stack
Venice: equivalent of 1.5 stacks
Poland: equivalent of 2 stacks
Hungary: equivalent of 1 stack
England: equivalent of 2.5 stacks
Scotland: equivalent of 1 stack

In ALL of continental Europe west of us (all the way down to the Gibraltar) there is a grand total of MAYBE 7 stacks worth of troops. There is absolutely nothing that can challenge us unless we challenge ourselves. I guarantee you, this game will lose a lot of its charm when there's no risk in anything we do. It became exactly like that in WOTS.

Maybe the Crusade isn't the answer, but we'd better come up with some solution quick.

[FactionHeir]

The AI tends to hide a few troops (even entire stacks) in trees, so there is always a rather large error percentage. Also, they can pump out units fairly quickly if they need to (In my Danish campaign, it took me 3 turns to march from the nearest region to Bulgar. During that time, the Russians down to their last region pumped out 3 cavalry a turn and sent strong half stacks at my advancing force) While it may be true that the other factions don't have as much military as we do, even waiting a bit longer won't cause them to build a lot more troops - they will just keep sending suicide squads.

The only way to really stop expansion is to make our enemies want to be at peace with us or become our vassals. According to the campaign_db file, this occurs when you control most of the regions adjacent to all of theirs and have a considerably large force near the border or in their lands at that time.

[TinCow]

The only way to really stop expansion is to make our enemies want to be at peace with us or become our vassals. According to the campaign_db file, this occurs when you control most of the regions adjacent to all of theirs and have a considerably large force near the border or in their lands at that time.

So the only way to stop expansion is to expand?

[Kagemusha]

Lets just then leave minimal amount of commanders in to the reich. For example if we leave an single commander to Franconia,all it takes is for the Danes to join the war and we could very easily start loosing cities. Same aplies with Austria and Hungary. All we need to make the game very hard is to have one commander against multiple opponents. The Autocalc battles wont mean automatic victories.

[nazgul3]

Oh plz dont give up Rome because then my banishment is for nothing and then i am bored lol..but i understand what u are saying. A crusade will slow down the game tremendously. Plus it gives me a chance to apologize because crusading i think that is the best part of the game. I mean the only reason why i did that whole threatning scene is because well i was bored. I cant really do anything else but vote and listen anyways soo...i think a crusade would def help

[Ituralde]

Since it has become customary to base one's IC argumentation with some OOC thinking, let me share you some of the stuff I thought about while writing Leopolds speech. These things are in addition to the things I said in my last post.

Loosing Rome would be a nice setback for our campaign. I can only imagine how long it will take for another one to find enough reason to take the city from the Papacy. Also it would only seem fitting with the explanations Heinrich has given for his recent campaigns against the Papacy. He always mentioned Gregory, never Rome, although this may have also been his goal. I realize that the game demands us to hold Rome to win, but I'm not so sure that every character we play is aware of this fact. It's not like we're counting settlements and suddenly everyone slaps each other on the shoulders and says: 'Yay, we've won!'
Giving up Rome would provide a short-term and long-term slowdown to our game, while the focus on a Crusade will still be present.

While the fabrication of something that takes up a lot of turns may seem tempting it should not become to fabricated just to stretch time. I think most of us agree OOC to slow down expansion to keep the game interesting. But I think more would be necessary in the long run than just this one Crusade, let's take some small steps towards the goal instead of one giant leap. While a Crusade may be entertaining I'm already dreading the inevitable split this will cause in the game, with a large part suddenly playing the 'Crusader PBM' and a smaller part playing the 'Defend your Homeland PBM'. I'm not against Crusades in general but let's not make them longer than they already are just so we cover more time for it's own sake.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Keep in mind that Rome *is* the new capital. Obviously, it does mean something to the Kaiser.

[Ituralde]

Well he's only the Kaiser...

On a more serious note I have only found the following regarding settlement transitions:

5.3 The Emperor can allocate settlements to one of the Four Houses.

So I don't see why an Edict couldn't decide the fate of a city, especially if a 2/3 majority could be found. I'm sure the same 2/3 would pass a necessary Chater Amendment, but it should not be needed in this case.

[tripwirescars]

question. are we currently involved in a diet? or is the diet II thread that's hot right now just pre-official diet discussion concerning the attack on the papacy? just want to know what the case is before the 7th elector of Swabia makes himself present.

[flyd]

The Diet is currently in an emergency session to discuss the possible crusade.

[tripwirescars]

alright. can i join in on the discussion then? or should i wait till the next official diet. i'm currently studying for a linguistics midterm and the shift button is superfluous so pardon my 12 year old typing.

[tripwirescars]

on other thing. although our victory conditions include rome. since we're roleplaying this game. can't we just keep rome and just continue playing after the victory conditions are satisfied? if the point is the glory of the hre i don't really see a reason to quit just because we hit the 45 settlement mark and happen to control rome. if a cutscene is the culmination of our work that's fine. i just wanted to toss that out there and get people's opinions.

[OverKnight]

Feel free to speak in the Diet, just don't threaten to kill anyone.

Good point about playing beyond the end of game cutscene by the way.

I look forward to extending Bavaria into the new world!

[Stuperman]

I was thinking of that earlier too, maybe trying to restore the Roman empire?

LOL, I can see it now: The Roman Empire 2, now with added holyness!!!

[OverKnight]

Technically, if not in practice, the HRE was a continuation of the Roman Empire. They considered themselves the true Empire, as compared to the Byzantines, who had their own opinion of the matter. There was even a few marriages between the two, which never panned out, so that the Empire could be reunited under one ruler.

Edit: Though this is based on my non-expert knowledge, so I'm not speaking with authority here.

2nd Edit: Also, many of the HRE Emperors, particularly the earlier ones, ruled from Rome. The city had a nasty habit of rebelling when they went north. So Heinrich's assertions have some history behind them.

[Stuperman]

I really like the sound of that.

[Kagemusha]

Ituralde has a point.Maybe we should just force the Rome back to Papacy. tripwirescars idea is also good.I wouldnt have any problems going into the new world with our good Germans. Im not sure which would be larger spoiler. To check the conditions constantly and make illogigal ingame decisions based on that,or just play as long we feel like that.

[OverKnight]

If we're still excommed when Heinrich dies, do we get reconciled? Or do we need to make peace first for the faction leader death to cause reconciliation?

[econ21]

With all this debate, there's a danger that we get too caught up in disputes about meta-gaming and the game rules. Arguing too much about OOC game manipulation may disrupt the in-character roleplaying aspect of the game. The roleplaying side was really taking off with GH's audacious move against Rome. I'm finding the arguments about the crusade are in danger of breaking the immersion for me. I suggest that people say their piece, then wait for the vote and move on. People usually have their own views on how to play a game and lengthy disputes probably won't change them.

For my part, I'm rather shocked by what TinCow has revealed about the weakness of the AI armies ranged against us. It seems that we may have gimped the AI by playing on Hard campaigns, although that decision was understandable given the desire to avoid the pyscho diplomacy of Very Hard. I think we should use cheat codes to give each AI faction 10000 florins a turn. The cost of building upgrades is so high, it probably won't help much but it is a start. I'll propose it as a Charter Amendment, but let's keep any discussion of it here as it is OOC.

[FactionHeir]

Err if we cheat code and gift the AI 10000 florins, it also means that they can actually pay our ransoms ;)

Reconciliation usually only happens if the new pope is of your own faction if you are at war with the states. If the leader dies but you are at war, you don't get reconciled I think. Not sure anymore.

[Ituralde]

I'm not sure whether I like the sound of that. First I have never done anything like it so I can't measure the scope whether 10000 will significantly boost the AI or do very little. I'd rather metagame a little to drag out the game than suddenly have 10 stacks of Feudal Knights at my doorstep, coming in on a turnly basis.

[Ignoramus]

The problem with all vanilla TW games is that there are not enough provinces. Thus, with the pool of players skills, a PBM like this is not that difficult.

I don't think there's a solution except that when this game is completed we ought to try a mod.

[Ituralde]

Just a last message that I will be leavig in around 4 hours. If I counted right the Diet voting will be open until Thursday night. I should be back by then, so if econ21 could leave the poll until Friday morning GMT I would be much obliged.

If this is not possible please let me know as soon as possible and I try to put my voting preferences in a PM to you.

[econ21]

OOC: You cannot give another faction florins with the console. Only yourself.

Are you sure? There is a command for it, although I know some commands only work by scripting and not by the consol.

The only way to give the AI florins is by giving yourself some and sending a diplomat around to gift it. This doesn't work with factions at war however.

If you are right about the consol, I think I could write a script that will do it automatically - like when I used Myddraal's script to control the Carthies in WotS. In fact, a script is probably best anyway as doing it manually via the Consol will be a bit of a pain for the Chancellor (so many factions).

First I have never done anything like it so I can't measure the scope whether 10000 will significantly boost the AI or do very little.

Well, you can look at our net profit each turn. 10,000 is a useful sum but not excessive. In RTW, I think VH gave the AI an extra 10,000.

I'd rather metagame a little to drag out the game than suddenly have 10 stacks of Feudal Knights at my doorstep, coming in on a turnly basis.

I suspect 10,000 will mean AI factions have one or two full stack AI armies - which seems to be one or two more than they currently have. But it won't mean 10 more and certainly not all knights.

[Ituralde]

If the change is that moderate I'll be the last to go against it.

[TinCow]

The statements about reconciliation are correct. What it boils down to is that we're pretty much going to have to give the Pope a territory before he stops attacking us every turn. Perhaps a massive cash offer would work, but it would really have to be massive.

[FactionHeir]

Econ, unless there have been new commands added to M2TW from RTW, there is no way to do that.
Also, instead of giving the AI 10000 a year, why not just give them say 100000 straight? In the end they'd just do the same but actually concentrate more on developing their cities first and sending quality troops instead of training more militia.
That money will last a long time too and not necessitate the chancellor to spend too much time with the diplomat.
I think I have found a way to make a faction at war accept money btw. You probably have to buy their map info for that amount.

TC: Or elect our own pope.

[econ21]

Econ, unless there have been new commands added to M2TW from RTW, there is no way to do that.

Sorry, I did not mean there was a command to give a faction an annual sum - just that each year, you would use the add_money command to give them money. The RTW command I was thinking of was:

add_money : adds an amount of money to a faction's coffers, can be negative, default is player faction

Ituralde - it's best to PM me your votes. I can only keep polls open for 1, 2, 3 etc days; I can't vary the hours.

[FactionHeir]

add_money only gives money to yourself. Tried that extensively.
Which is why I said you would have to use a diplomat to give them money.

[econ21]

add_money only gives money to yourself. Tried that extensively.

OK, so we would have to use something like a MP script (or the MP hotseat mode) to implement this. Given the problems with such a script - attacks on us would autoresolved - I agree your idea of a one-off 100,000 lump sum gift is better than giving 10,000 each turn. What we could do is every 10 turns (Diet), I could run a MP script or something to give each AI faction 100,000 florins. Does that sound feasible to you?